Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 200

Thread: Nothing is impossible

  1. #41
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Mr Kewlj please help me out here. Do you agree that it is possible to win money at a negative expectation game, or is it your position that you cannot win money at a negative expectation game?

    I'm trying to understand your definition of mathematically impossible.
    Obviously, it's theoretically possible to get lucky and win for years playing a -EV game, thats never been in dispute(obviously we don't believe people making such claims).

    Its theoretically possible for someone to get a dealt royal flush on VP 100 times in a row, however, it's impossible for someone to get a royal flush on VP if they never play a hand of video poker in their life.

    Obviously, in my following example I'm not talking about glitches, gaffs, promotions or programming errors, so for argument's sake let's assume nothing like that's going on.

    If you take a video poker pay table and do the calculations and it comes back at a 95% Payback then it's a 95% Payback with optimal play period. If someone comes along and tells you there's a strategy or way of playing that will magically turn a 95% paypack into a 110% payback, that's impossible(1+1 can't =5). However, it's possible people can get lucky due to variance and win. You're either an idiot or a troll if you don't understand this concept.

  2. #42
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post

    Uhhhh,no. Triple is over $500,000. I love people who go by the.math.
    Well, if you start with 171.6k and claim to have made a profit of 375k. What would your ending amount be...lol
    Yet he wants to ask only if it's possible to double the starting bankroll. I'm trying to figure out the question that needs to be answered.
    Claims that are highly questionable always seem to be surrounded in clouded descriptions and lacking in detail. I love people who are idiots.
    All you're showing is not having or caring about an understanding of what's been said. I'll explain it YET AGAIN for the slow ones. (and this is especially for RS__, who like redietz, usually jumps at my posts without really knowing much about the substance at all).

    The bankroll I used for playing starting in 2000 was $171,600. Simple enuf, right? My per-session bankroll was $57,200. 3 times that amount is $171,600 which as explained many times, was what I wanted to have just in case the strategy--which relied heavily upon getting high paying hands in higher denominations--experienced a devastating loss or two, which it never did other than one $33,000 loss.

    Next, when I stated "double the starting bankroll" that simply means what the actual ending result was. Had I played it for 8 years instead of 4 and the profit ended up being $750,000, the wording would have said "quadruple the starting bankroll".

    From what I'm seeing, people who want to be critical of what I say are very similar to the democrats who try so hard to criticize and debunk what impeachment witnesses favorable to Trump are doing. They don't really understand facts, so they turn to guessing, theory, and spin in order to claim their desired points.

    The edit here is to ask WTF did RS__ multiply my total gambling bankroll by 3 for, and why did he use an addition and division of non-related numbers??

    This is how the stupid people respond when they have no idea what they or anyone else is talking about.
    AmI REALLY even more intelligent and capable than previously believed than this poorly organized collection of self-proclaimed "professional gamblers" here?
    LOL. The short answer is no.

    In fact, what's really funny is that you asked a rhetorical question with an obvious answer, "Of course not!"

  3. #43
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Mr Kewlj please help me out here. Do you agree that it is possible to win money at a negative expectation game, or is it your position that you cannot win money at a negative expectation game?

    I'm trying to understand your definition of mathematically impossible.
    Obviously, it's theoretically possible to get lucky and win for years playing a -EV game, thats never been in dispute(obviously we don't believe people making such claims).

    Its theoretically possible for someone to get a dealt royal flush on VP 100 times in a row, however, it's impossible for someone to get a royal flush on VP if they never play a hand of video poker in their life.

    Obviously, in my following example I'm not talking about glitches, gaffs, promotions or programming errors, so for argument's sake let's assume nothing like that's going on.

    If you take a video poker pay table and do the calculations and it comes back at a 95% Payback then it's a 95% Payback with optimal play period. If someone comes along and tells you there's a strategy or way of playing that will magically turn a 95% paypack into a 110% payback, that's impossible(1+1 can't =5). However, it's possible people can get lucky due to variance and win. You're either an idiot or a troll if you don't understand this concept.
    I don't know of anyone who said they turn a 95% game into a 105% game but there might be people who got a 105% return on a game that is supposed to return 95%. Now, do you understand that concept?

  4. #44
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Mr Kewlj please help me out here. Do you agree that it is possible to win money at a negative expectation game, or is it your position that you cannot win money at a negative expectation game?

    I'm trying to understand your definition of mathematically impossible.
    Of course it is possible to win money at negative expectation game....in the short run. It occurs hundreds of times a day in every casino.

    Furthermore one of those short term wins could be so large that it even wipes out a whole lot of losing, say a progressive jackpot win of a couple million, could wipe out several years of losing. BUT that doesn't make it a winning play! And it doesn't make it a winning system, as Rob here claims and has claimed for years and decades.
    I don't know what Mr Rob claims or claimed but thank you for saying you can win at negative expectation games. Given that something like 40% of the adults in this country have gambled in casinos I would think there are some who have life-long profits at negative expectation games.

  5. #45
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Mr Kewlj please help me out here. Do you agree that it is possible to win money at a negative expectation game, or is it your position that you cannot win money at a negative expectation game?

    I'm trying to understand your definition of mathematically impossible.
    Obviously, it's theoretically possible to get lucky and win for years playing a -EV game, thats never been in dispute(obviously we don't believe people making such claims).

    Its theoretically possible for someone to get a dealt royal flush on VP 100 times in a row, however, it's impossible for someone to get a royal flush on VP if they never play a hand of video poker in their life.

    Obviously, in my following example I'm not talking about glitches, gaffs, promotions or programming errors, so for argument's sake let's assume nothing like that's going on.

    If you take a video poker pay table and do the calculations and it comes back at a 95% Payback then it's a 95% Payback with optimal play period. If someone comes along and tells you there's a strategy or way of playing that will magically turn a 95% paypack into a 110% payback, that's impossible(1+1 can't =5). However, it's possible people can get lucky due to variance and win. You're either an idiot or a troll if you don't understand this concept.
    I don't know of anyone who said they turn a 95% game into a 105% game but there might be people who got a 105% return on a game that is supposed to return 95%. Now, do you understand that concept?
    Of course. The question is whether someone who assigns that return a reason, such as a system, is peddling hogwash or just self-deluded.

    I recommend (for everyone) that they get a probability course from The Great Courses and review it every year at least once. The course I bought is really easy to get through, is very entertaining, and it always helps to put things in perspective. The courses themselves are not expensive, usually between $40 and $100.

  6. #46
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by AndrewG View Post
    Mr Kewlj please help me out here. Do you agree that it is possible to win money at a negative expectation game, or is it your position that you cannot win money at a negative expectation game?

    I'm trying to understand your definition of mathematically impossible.
    Of course it is possible to win money at negative expectation game....in the short run. It occurs hundreds of times a day in every casino.

    Furthermore one of those short term wins could be so large that it even wipes out a whole lot of losing, say a progressive jackpot win of a couple million, could wipe out several years of losing. BUT that doesn't make it a winning play! And it doesn't make it a winning system, as Rob here claims and has claimed for years and decades.
    I don't know what Mr Rob claims or claimed but thank you for saying you can win at negative expectation games. Given that something like 40% of the adults in this country have gambled in casinos I would think there are some who have life-long profits at negative expectation games.

    This post suggests that you may be overestimating how likely this is. The word "some" can be a bit of a weasel word. It's true enough, as in "There are some white crows." In the probability course I mentioned in my previous post, there are examples given of how likely it is to have a profit after various numbers of trials. There will (almost always) be "sole survivors" who have won, but what is the point of making the argument? To say that nothing is impossible? People who say that are usually trying to hang some philosophical meaning onto it.

    Striving for the impossible is stupid. Striving for the almost impossible is equally stupid.

  7. #47
    In blackjack card counting, the optimal betting is Full Kelly (criteria). But betting Full Kelly comes with a 13% RoR (risk of ruin) which is a level no professional or serious player would accept or play. So professional players play a fraction of Kelly.

    I forget the exact numbers but playing Half Kelly lowers your risk to low single digits. Still to high for me and most professional players. When you get down to quarter Kelly, (I am even below that), your are essentially at 0 RoR.

    Now technically quarter Kelly isnt Zero. It is like 0.0000 -something. So technically you could still go broke but you would have to be the unluckiest person ever born.

    So we round off. Quarter Kelly is Zero RoR. And thats what I am doing. I am rounding off the odds of Robs claim to impossible.

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Am I the only one who gets this? You start out with a session amount of 57k. You win your $2500 win goal (or more) and leave. You lose 35k one time, but the next trip win, say, 10k. One trip you hit the elusive Royal at $10 level. Yada, yada,yada. At the year's end, you end up with $90k (+or-). Over 3 years- well,hopefully you get it.
    Boy-O-boy-O-boy. (note the 2 emojis. One the roll of the eyes as I can't believe this and the second it just makes me sad)

    Slingshot, you don't seem like a bad guy to me. I don't think you are a huckster trying to scam anyone. I think you just don't get it and are gullible enough to be falling for this crap. And that is why I always feel the need to speak out about these different kinds of voodoo, alternative math type claims. And while you are the member who has been open about following this voodoo "system" of Rob's, the fear is that for every "slingshot" there are other lurkers and followers that don't speak up that gets duped and eventually hurt.

    So being that I don't think you are intentionally trying to mislead anyone, I want to ask you a question. You have been following and playing Rob's "system" or a version of Rob's system, off and on for a number of years right? How much are you ahead doing so. And remember I am trusting you to be honest.
    Sorry-took my wife and her friends shopping the whole day today-just reading. As has been answered many times, I play multidenominational machines 5¢-25¢, artt style. My usual win is between $60-$200. This month has been unusually good as I had two 25¢ royals-really unusual. I am a recreational player who makes above average for a quarter player because of artt strategy. I was behind $200 when I hit the.first Royal in clubs. FWIW, I hit BOTH Royals (one in hearts) by holding 3-royal in a 4 flush. I know, I probably messed up.My ev! I took $100 and.was playing a lightning link penny machine at 50¢ when Bam! I hit the $600 major jackpot! Who knows how I stand for the year-I just have fun and pick up the freebies. But I do know the strlategy works better thAn playing a single denomination.

  9. #49
    I realize how some of the really biased haters like to react to something they aren't capable of thinking deeply enough into in order to figure it out. I see axel's post as something the rest of you should follow more closely. My play strategy--a negative expectation strategy as we are all aware of--is in fact mathematicallyi capable of resulting in a winner over a session, 100 sessions, or more because good luck happens. And my strategy was specifically designed to produce more good luck than would be realized by playing optimal strategy only. Further, it's not like I needed to overcome a 40% edge. Think about what a tiny % I was chasing after, and in a strategy that has a hefty bankroll with 6 structured denominations and a simple 5% win goal, session after session, put two and two together.

    The math kew likes to argue does not preclude something like this from happening. He just doesn't get it, and for someone who reads a lot of AP books just to sound convincing in his myriad of posts on multiple forums so he can pretend he's a "gambling pro", his reading comprehension is more than somewhat limited.

    Yes it is very highly possible to win a single session of my strategy, and those odds do not change no matter how many individual sessions are played. The point of contention is how PROBABLE is it? That's why I used a large bankroll to play a game that inherently rewards lucky players with what are basically huge jackpots at times. The big effort is, to keep 3 devastating session losses at bay, and that is very easy...but not 100% for certain....to do. I have found a way to bring this all together in a very complex strategy that few would ever be able to play properly IF they brought the same set of capabilities and circumstances that I always did.

    What isn't needed is a totally misinformed dumbass "analysis" by and idiot like RS__.

  10. #50
    Thank you for answering Slingshot. The key part of your answer I guess was "who knows how I am doing for the year". Well we don't know so I was hoping you would.


    My grandfather was a horse race guy. Also an attorney. He left his law practice everyday just after lunch and went to the racetrack with his friends. As a kid I enjoyed a number of times with him.

    If you asked him how he had done over his lifetime as I once did and others did, he would say "about even". No way was he about even over his life. That's what your answer reminds me of. No offense but how can anyone argue or even have an opinion if something works if you don't keep some kind of record or tab.

    Now I know you play for enjoyment Slingshot. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Play any way you find most enjoyable. That is how I felt about Alan as well. Hell that is even ok for Rob. If Rob wants to amend his story (yet again) to that he retired early from whatever career and took up playing VP and plays a progressive system that will increase the number of winning sessions but still a long term losing player, I am all for it.

    If he wants to say that sometimes he goes against optimal play (his special plays) and that increases the slight chance of a big hit, WHILE still decreasing long-term results, I would wish him well and say have fun.

    But you start posting this alternative math crap stuff as a winning system as Rob does, and I am going to have something to say about it

  11. #51
    In my opinion, most of the posters have been slowly understanding the issue of expectation versus probability. Or at least, understanding the veteran experience on this forum versus new individuals.

    For myself, the argument is best explained by a sinusoidal wave diagram. If you view it from the eyes of a casino, and adjust the parameters for realistic numbers, you would have KJ's standard expectation at the top of the apex and Rob's number at the nadir. I will not put Rob's number off the graph but, to be fair, if his number is on the graph then the apex could be as much as a 50 percent loss. Both can happen.

    In AndrrewG's terms, it is like a one person committing suicide with a gun on 5th Avenue versus a headless and handless body found in the East River with no identifiable markings. Some items have an easy answer and some are difficult to process.

    KU knows, I follow the math. But anything is possible. I think this is fair example regarding expectations. Each individual can decide where the position of the claims belong but it would satisfy that a good probability is covered. You can decide where it belongs on the graph.

    I have lightning striking twice at the same place, a beautiful woman loving an engineer, and everyone agreeing on this forum, at the nadir. The first item has happened. With God's blessing, the other two can occur.

    Oh crap, I see bold typeface and a response from BoSox in my future.

  12. #52
    Deech, you have sort of solved two issue. You have found something that we all can agree on. And that is that no beautiful woman is going to fall in love with an engineer.

    Just kidding...good luck with that.

  13. #53
    And Deech if that beautiful woman thing doesn't work out, there is a funny old song (I'll look it up when I get home) about marrying an ugly woman.

    In the lyrics one dude says "I saw your wife, she sure is ugly". The other dude responds "yeah but she sure can cook".

  14. #54

  15. #55
    We have a condo in Florida and I do state frequently, "How can I miss you if you won't go away?". Let's just say, she is from Massachusetts and I am from New York, so it is a mixed marriage. I came to Boston on a three hour tour (like the S.S. Minnow) and now have stayed for 35 years. The negotiation was that we would live somewhere between both families but Rob's math got involves. We are 11 miles from her parents. Sorry Rob, that is a cheap shot but you know I love you.

    As you guys know, I am neutral in politics and neutral on issues here. I love you all. I can't tell you how many replies I had ready and deleted because they could be taken the wrong way.

    And AndrewG, after my firs post, after viewing the website for 8 months or so, I made my first post. Half of the responses were about individuals trying to figure out who I was. Heavens forbid, I was new. I knew exactly way KJ was stating but I also knew that a fresh response could occur.

  16. #56
    We have a condo in Florida and I do state frequently, "How can I miss you if you won't go away?". Let's just say, she is from Massachusetts and I am from New York, so it is a mixed marriage.

    That poor woman!

  17. #57
    The Celtics never miss a layup.

  18. #58
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Thank you for answering Slingshot. The key part of your answer I guess was "who knows how I am doing for the year". Well we don't know so I was hoping you would.


    My grandfather was a horse race guy. Also an attorney. He left his law practice everyday just after lunch and went to the racetrack with his friends. As a kid I enjoyed a number of times with him.

    If you asked him how he had done over his lifetime as I once did and others did, he would say "about even". No way was he about even over his life. That's what your answer reminds me of. No offense but how can anyone argue or even have an opinion if something works if you don't keep some kind of record or tab.

    Now I know you play for enjoyment Slingshot. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Play any way you find most enjoyable. That is how I felt about Alan as well. Hell that is even ok for Rob. If Rob wants to amend his story (yet again) to that he retired early from whatever career and took up playing VP and plays a progressive system that will increase the number of winning sessions but still a long term losing player, I am all for it.

    If he wants to say that sometimes he goes against optimal play (his special plays) and that increases the slight chance of a big hit, WHILE still decreasing long-term results, I would wish him well and say have fun.

    But you start posting this alternative math crap stuff as a winning system as Rob does, and I am going to have something to say about it
    I just can't comprehend,after playing myself, why you must feel there has to be long term losing. Sorry, I just don't get that.

  19. #59
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Thank you for answering Slingshot. The key part of your answer I guess was "who knows how I am doing for the year". Well we don't know so I was hoping you would.


    My grandfather was a horse race guy. Also an attorney. He left his law practice everyday just after lunch and went to the racetrack with his friends. As a kid I enjoyed a number of times with him.

    If you asked him how he had done over his lifetime as I once did and others did, he would say "about even". No way was he about even over his life. That's what your answer reminds me of. No offense but how can anyone argue or even have an opinion if something works if you don't keep some kind of record or tab.

    Now I know you play for enjoyment Slingshot. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Play any way you find most enjoyable. That is how I felt about Alan as well. Hell that is even ok for Rob. If Rob wants to amend his story (yet again) to that he retired early from whatever career and took up playing VP and plays a progressive system that will increase the number of winning sessions but still a long term losing player, I am all for it.

    If he wants to say that sometimes he goes against optimal play (his special plays) and that increases the slight chance of a big hit, WHILE still decreasing long-term results, I would wish him well and say have fun.

    But you start posting this alternative math crap stuff as a winning system as Rob does, and I am going to have something to say about it
    I just can't comprehend,after playing myself, why you must feel there has to be long term losing. Sorry, I just don't get that.

    Well, I can only deduce that slingshot can't comprehend why casinos "must feel there has to be long term" winning versus patrons. Must be just as baffling.

  20. #60
    Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
    I just can't comprehend,after playing myself, why you must feel there has to be long term losing. Sorry, I just don't get that.
    -EV play = longterm losing play. I know you don't get this, but it is true. You just can't "will" winning from a negative EV game.

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
  •