The Fruits Of -EV Video Poker

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz I didn't bother to read your post.

You lie like a rug.

Mickeycrimm believe me about this: I've given up reading anything by redietz. Sorry redietz, but I'm not giving you the time it takes to read anything you write because I already know it's an attack on me and Singer. So why bother? Same thing with another poster here. Why bother?

[AxelWolf]

Redietz I didn't bother to read your post.

You lie like a rug.

Alans margin of error question. Why do I get the feeling he wants to know how confident you can be playing x amount of hands while playing 1% Advantage that you will be a winner. And the same thing for being a loser over x amount of hands on a 1% loser. Or how many hands before you can be 100% confident you will win or lose. Can you ever have a 100% guarantee a 1% winner or loser will win or lose? With perfect play Is it technically possable to beat a 1% loser over 5 million hands of VP? I know we are getting into some 18 yo's in a row number here.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually Axel the margin of error becomes less significant with the increased number of trials, but the margin of error itself increases with a fewer number of trials.

[AxelWolf]

Redietz I didn't bother to read your post.

You lie like a rug.

Mickeycrimm believe me about this: I've given up reading anything by redietz. Sorry redietz, but I'm not giving you the time it takes to read anything you write because I already know it's an attack on me and Singer. So why bother? Same thing with another poster here. Why bother?

Let me interpret what you really mean.

It was so good of an explanation and or beyond my comprehension, I will pretend to not have read it since I have nothing and might have to admit he is right.

[Alan Mendelson]

No. I mean redietz lost all my respect with his shenanigans over that fucking package.

[Dan Druff]

I should give Alan and Rob a lesson in math here.

The "long run" isn't as long as you think, when it comes to gambling.

I'll give you an example.

Take 1000 coin flips.

I take heads, you take tails, the coin is totally "fair" (even chance of landing on heads or tails), and we have a third party flipping it, so nobody can pull any shenanigans.

What do you think the chances are that you will get at least 575 tails out of the 1000 flips?

After all, the average would be 500 to 500, so it wouldn't be that hard to score 75 extra tails occasionally, right?

In reality, it's very hard. How hard?

Your chance of getting 575 tails or more is 0.00053%.

It would happen 1 out of 186,745 times.

This is why it would be wise to trust a sportsbettor who makes 57.5% correct "side" (point spread) after 1000 tries. There would only be a 1 in 186,745 chance that he managed that through luck, while it's almost 100% he did it through skill.

Getting back to Rob and video poker.

While numbers like "99% return" and "101% return" sound insignificant, they're actually not.

After a relatively small number of hands, the luck will flatten out. You can't play an extended period of time at 99% return and win, and you can't play an extended period of time at 101% (provided you're playing correctly) and lose.

Rob would be far better off stating that he took a few fluke shots at $50 and $100 machines, hit a few royals in a short time, and then returned to 25c VP using those immense winnings as a cushion. Then at least he could claim to be up money and be (kind of) believable.

But 10 years of regular or semi-regular play resulting in $1,000,000 profit?

That's as absurd as seeing 18 yos in a row. Except the difference is that I believe Alan believes he saw 18 yos in a row, but just saw something incorrectly. Rob knows he didn't win a million, but he uses it to troll APs here.

[AxelWolf]

I should give Alan and Rob a lesson in math here.

The "long run" isn't as long as you think, when it comes to gambling.

I'll give you an example.

Take 1000 coin flips.

I take heads, you take tails, the coin is totally "fair" (even chance of landing on heads or tails), and we have a third party flipping it, so nobody can pull any shenanigans.

What do you think the chances are that you will get at least 575 tails out of the 1000 flips?

After all, the average would be 500 to 500, so it wouldn't be that hard to score 75 extra tails occasionally, right?

In reality, it's very hard. How hard?

Your chance of getting 575 tails or more is 0.00053%.

It would happen 1 out of 186,745 times.

This is why it would be wise to trust a sportsbettor who makes 57.5% correct "side" (point spread) after 1000 tries. There would only be a 1 in 186,745 chance that he managed that through luck, while it's almost 100% he did it through skill.

Getting back to Rob and video poker.

While numbers like "99% return" and "101% return" sound insignificant, they're actually not.

After a relatively small number of hands, the luck will flatten out. You can't play an extended period of time at 99% return and win, and you can't play an extended period of time at 101% (provided you're playing correctly) and lose.

Rob would be far better off stating that he took a few fluke shots at $50 and $100 machines, hit a few royals in a short time, and then returned to 25c VP using those immense winnings as a cushion. Then at least he could claim to be up money and be (kind of) believable.

But 10 years of regular or semi-regular play resulting in $1,000,000 profit?

That's as absurd as seeing 18 yos in a row. Except the difference is that I believe Alan believes he saw 18 yos in a row, but just saw something incorrectly. Rob knows he didn't win a million, but he uses it to troll APs here.

He is going to claim you can't hit a Royal Flush and Aces with a kicker flipping quarters.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan think about Rob differently, if you can:

Playing $25 video poker he won about $100,000 a year.

Does that sound better?

How about this: playing 25 sessions of $5/coin video poker he averaged a win of just $4,000 per session. Is that better?

Well try this:

Rob Singer played 100 video poker sessions at $25 per play and managed an average win of just $1,000 per session. Is that better now?

Okay, one more try.

Rob Singer played 200 video poker sessions per year, averaging a win of only $500 per session. Is it sounding better now?

Why don't you ask kewlj how he's going to make up his $29,000 one week loss playing less than $500 per hand to stay under the radar?

Why don't you ask Mickeycrimm about his claim of NEVER having a losing month since 2007?

Frankly of all the claims made here (except for redietz who I never doubted) Rob Singer winning $100k per year at HIGH LIMITS video poker is one of the few (or only one) that makes sense.

Rob's claim certainly makes more sense than the claims of $800 an hour AP plays.

[RS__]

Dan think about Rob differently, if you can:

Playing $25 video poker he won about $100,000 a year.

Does that sound better?

How about this: playing 25 sessions of $5/coin video poker he averaged a win of just $4,000 per session. Is that better?

Well try this:

Rob Singer played 100 video poker sessions at $25 per play and managed an average win of just $1,000 per session. Is that better now?

Okay, one more try.

Rob Singer played 200 video poker sessions per year, averaging a win of only $500 per session. Is it sounding better now?

Why don't you ask kewlj how he's going to make up his $29,000 one week loss playing less than $500 per hand to stay under the radar?

Why don't you ask Mickeycrimm about his claim of NEVER having a losing month since 2007?

Frankly of all the claims made here (except for redietz who I never doubted) Rob Singer winning $100k per year at HIGH LIMITS video poker is one of the few (or only one) that makes sense.

Rob's claim certainly makes more sense than the claims of $800 an hour AP plays.

Question: When you ask if it’s believable to win $100k/year playing $25 denom....then $4k/session, then $1k, then $500....do you think the first is more believable or the last? As in, which do you think is more likely or easier to do — win $100k/yr on $25 or have 200 sessions averaging a $500 win each?


Alan, try this on for size. A partner and I played a promo where we lost $52k within the first 24 hours. By the end of the trip, we not only got our money back, but ended up with a decent profit. We were actually slightly above EV by the end, and neither of us hit a royal the whole trip. And there’s no “shenanigans” when I say that, like I’m not counting food, comps, hotel, or anything like that — just cash. No funny-business accounting either (like only recording winning sessions and ignoring losing sessions or anything like that).

It’s called variance — it goes well sometimes and it goes bad sometimes. But when the average result is a positive number...we’ll, good things happen. It’s just math. Really, it is. It’s not that scary; it won’t bite.

[monet]

I should give Alan and Rob a lesson in math here.

The "long run" isn't as long as you think, when it comes to gambling.

I'll give you an example.

Take 1000 coin flips.

I take heads, you take tails, the coin is totally "fair" (even chance of landing on heads or tails), and we have a third party flipping it, so nobody can pull any shenanigans.

What do you think the chances are that you will get at least 575 tails out of the 1000 flips?

After all, the average would be 500 to 500, so it wouldn't be that hard to score 75 extra tails occasionally, right?

In reality, it's very hard. How hard?

Your chance of getting 575 tails or more is 0.00053%.

It would happen 1 out of 186,745 times.

This is why it would be wise to trust a sportsbettor who makes 57.5% correct "side" (point spread) after 1000 tries. There would only be a 1 in 186,745 chance that he managed that through luck, while it's almost 100% he did it through skill.

Getting back to Rob and video poker.

While numbers like "99% return" and "101% return" sound insignificant, they're actually not.

After a relatively small number of hands, the luck will flatten out. You can't play an extended period of time at 99% return and win, and you can't play an extended period of time at 101% (provided you're playing correctly) and lose.

Rob would be far better off stating that he took a few fluke shots at $50 and $100 machines, hit a few royals in a short time, and then returned to 25c VP using those immense winnings as a cushion. Then at least he could claim to be up money and be (kind of) believable.

But 10 years of regular or semi-regular play resulting in $1,000,000 profit?

That's as absurd as seeing 18 yos in a row. Except the difference is that I believe Alan believes he saw 18 yos in a row, but just saw something incorrectly. Rob knows he didn't win a million, but he uses it to troll APs here.

Great Post!
Thank You.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan think about Rob differently, if you can:

Playing $25 video poker he won about $100,000 a year.

Does that sound better?

How about this: playing 25 sessions of $5/coin video poker he averaged a win of just $4,000 per session. Is that better?

Well try this:

Rob Singer played 100 video poker sessions at $25 per play and managed an average win of just $1,000 per session. Is that better now?

Okay, one more try.

Rob Singer played 200 video poker sessions per year, averaging a win of only $500 per session. Is it sounding better now?

Why don't you ask kewlj how he's going to make up his $29,000 one week loss playing less than $500 per hand to stay under the radar?

Why don't you ask Mickeycrimm about his claim of NEVER having a losing month since 2007?

Frankly of all the claims made here (except for redietz who I never doubted) Rob Singer winning $100k per year at HIGH LIMITS video poker is one of the few (or only one) that makes sense.

Rob's claim certainly makes more sense than the claims of $800 an hour AP plays.

Question: When you ask if it’s believable to win $100k/year playing $25 denom....then $4k/session, then $1k, then $500....do you think the first is more believable or the last? As in, which do you think is more likely or easier to do — win $100k/yr on $25 or have 200 sessions averaging a $500 win each?


Alan, try this on for size. A partner and I played a promo where we lost $52k within the first 24 hours. By the end of the trip, we not only got our money back, but ended up with a decent profit. We were actually slightly above EV by the end, and neither of us hit a royal the whole trip. And there’s no “shenanigans” when I say that, like I’m not counting food, comps, hotel, or anything like that — just cash. No funny-business accounting either (like only recording winning sessions and ignoring losing sessions or anything like that).

It’s called variance — it goes well sometimes and it goes bad sometimes. But when the average result is a positive number...we’ll, good things happen. It’s just math. Really, it is. It’s not that scary; it won’t bite.

Variance. Thank you. Rob won. He played high limit video poker. It was variance.

Would you guys find it easier if instead of winning $100k a year he won $5000 a year playing 25-cent video poker?

I've seen people people win $5,000 and even $10,000 on multi hand 25-cent games. You have too.

[Alan Mendelson]

You realize that you're all saying Rob could not win because of less than one-tenth of one percent of EXPECTED return?

Really now, what's the margin of error as it compares to less than one-tenth of one percent?

It's not okay for Rob Singer to win $100k over the course of a year with payoffs of as much as 800X your bet, but it's okay to lose $29,000 in one week but still expect that $29k to be won back to maintain a yearly profit at a game when at best you can only win 150% of your bet?

[RS__]

Variance. Thank you. Rob won. He played high limit video poker. It was variance.

Would you guys find it easier if instead of winning $100k a year he won $5000 a year playing 25-cent video poker?

I've seen people people win $5,000 and even $10,000 on multi hand 25-cent games. You have too.

I love how every other post you say you don't know if Rob won, but the other half of your posts you insist he did.

Of course there's variance, but it's very different when talking about a few hours of play versus several thousand hours. If you flip a coin 10 times, it's well within reason to get 6 (or more) heads and 4 (or fewer) tails. If you flip a coin 1,000 times, getting 600 (or more) heads and 400 (or fewer) tails is ABSOLUTELY NOT happening. Just because they're both 60% heads doesn't mean they're similar. This is something I don't think you understand at all.

[RS__]

You realize that you're all saying Rob could not win because of less than one-tenth of one percent of EXPECTED return?

Really now, what's the margin of error as it compares to less than one-tenth of one percent?

It's not okay for Rob Singer to win $100k over the course of a year with payoffs of as much as 800X your bet, but it's okay to lose $29,000 in one week but still expect that $29k to be won back to maintain a yearly profit at a game when at best you can only win 150% of your bet?

Less than 1/10'th of 1%....what the hell kind of meth are you smoking?

[Alan Mendelson]

Oops. My error. Less than one percent.

Okay less than one percent and that prevents Rob from winning?

Come on now RS, you just had a trip when you lost $52k and then won it back and finished with a profit? In one trip, making a $100k+ turnabout? Why? Because you had a 1% advantage?

But over the course of a year Rob can't win at a 1% disadvantage?

I'm not buying that bridge.

[blackhole]

[QUOTE=Dan Druff;76720

[RS__]

Oops. My error. Less than one percent.

Okay less than one percent and that prevents Rob from winning?

Come on now RS, you just had a trip when you lost $52k and then won it back and finished with a profit? In one trip, making a $100k+ turnabout? Why? Because you had a 1% advantage?

But over the course of a year Rob can't win at a 1% disadvantage?

I'm not buying that bridge.

Of course Rob can win over the course of a year with a 1% disadvantage. But there's a difference between one year and 10 years, just like there's a difference between 10 coin flips and 1,000 coin flips.

The "turnabout" was partially due to good variance and also about $40k in free-play (which made it a hair over 1% advantage).

Video poker AP’s talk about .1% .2% etc. along with perfect play to become +EV.

No, they don't. At least not any AP worth his salt.

[Alan Mendelson]

So RS just how much of an edge do APs have playing video poker? Please don't include things like comps and cashback because Rob Singer could also claim them.

What edge do you have that is more than the paytable? Is there any?

If you exclude comps and cashback then we are just talking about tenths of one percent, right?

My point is this:

It's just wrong to say Rob can't win playing games that are only tenths of a percent below 100% expected return. Variance alone could make up that tiny difference. And with Rob playing high denominations winning $100k a year is within his ballpark.

I doubt he could win that money at $1, $2 and even $5 VP consistently, but with $25 VP and any quad worth $3250 or more of course it's possible. Look at all the quads monet recently posted.

Also I need to say this again. I have no proof Rob won what he says he won. I'm only saying it's possible and it shouldn't be said it's impossible only because he's playing less than 100% games.

[RS__]

So RS just how much of an edge do APs have playing video poker? Please don't include things like comps and cashback because Rob Singer could also claim them.

What edge do you have that is more than the paytable? Is there any?

If you exclude comps and cashback then we are just talking about tenths of one percent, right?

My point is this:

It's just wrong to say Rob can't win playing games that are only tenths of a percent below 100% expected return. Variance alone could make up that tiny difference. And with Rob playing high denominations winning $100k a year is within his ballpark.

I doubt he could win that money at $1, $2 and even $5 VP consistently, but with $25 VP and any quad worth $3250 or more of course it's possible. Look at all the quads monet recently posted.

Also I need to say this again. I have no proof Rob won what he says he won. I'm only saying it's possible and it shouldn't be said it's impossible only because he's playing less than 100% games.

The edge can be tiny (like 0.1% or some dumb shit like that) that's not playable, something more normal/average like 2-5%, or even something huge that's like 20%+. Obviously there's discretion as far as whether it's worth it or not. I'm not too interested in something that's 10% if it's on the other side of town (or worse, out of town) if it's super limited and it's something dumb like "Get $15 in free-play after playing $100 coin in." Generally something in the 1-2% range isn't really worth it, unless you can play a bunch. And of course, things like variance have to be taken into account, how feasible it is to do, and expenses / time lost.

Of course you or Rob can "claim" stuff like cash-back, free-play, and other promotional / marketing stuff, but considering you're not making money gambling, I have a feeling you don't do it properly. Weren't you writing about how you had an offer at Caesars and MGM at the same time (that included freeplay), but instead of checking into both hotels to get both offers, you only checked in to MGM (or more specifically, Bellagio, IIRC) because you weren't planning on playing at Caesars at all, so you forego'd the offer? Generally, APs aren't beating the games outright, they're making their money from marketing and promotions and losing less on the actual machine than what they're getting back in promotional stuff. There are obviously cases where APs are beating the machines outright, like on full pay deuces wild, but you're not going to find it in a denomination high enough to make it worth it.


No actual AP claims to beat any -EV VP straight up, without promotions/marketing/etc.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks RS but the more you talk about things like checking into two hotels the more I believe that tenths of a percent cant prevent Rob from winning big.

And again that's my only point. You can't automatically say it's impossible for him to win.