The New Jersey Blackjack Whale and Rob Singer: what they have in common

[arcimede$]

arci won't reply to that. He doesn't want any more educated, intelligent, well-spoken adversaries on ANY forums who consistently point out how he digs his own holes, so he won't want this post to thrive. He's all about self-impression that builds what he believes to be a video poker legend across the Internet, and with the challenges he's facing these days, all he really has left is a virtual world where he can lie about himself and pretend everyone always buys it.

Actually, the reason I didn't reply was because it was completely inaccurate. If a student made such ridiculous claims as the ones presented here I pretty sure many professors would also use sarcasm in their replies. I'm sure it wouldn't change anyone's opinion so I let it go.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you verify your claims about me. I guess you are now admitting you lied about it just like you lie about everything. Lies, lies and more lies. The only thing you have to say.

[Alan Mendelson]

1) I determine the edge by the sum of all the cash equivalent items. For me this includes: a) ER, b) Cashback, c) Freeplay, d) cash promotions. However, I don't think it's wrong to count other things like gifts, meals, rooms and other comps if they are things you would pay cash for if you did not receive them.

I was most interested in answer #1 but all of the answers are appreciated.
I think that your answer to #1 puts you with just about every other casino gambler -- including the losers. We all go to casinos for entertainment, and based on your answer you could also factor in an entertainment value. Entertainment value also has a cash equivalent -- because it also costs money to go on a cruise, take a weekend trip to Santa Barbara, play golf, go to the movies, etc.

So why is this important? Because all of the entertainment value that one gets from a casino lessens the need to play "full pay games" or "positive games" and using correct strategy because the entertainment value could outweigh the need for a profitable bet. I think this is why we see people play craps -- a negative expectation game by anyone's definition, yet a game that offers a lot of enjoyment and a challenge and why you can see people buy in for thousands of dollars at a time.

In video poker, we see players play -- and enjoy -- the "carnival games" of video poker such as games with bonus rounds and spinning bonus wheels and progressives with generally poor pay tables. Players get enjoyment from this.

My point is this: unless you are a purist when it comes to pay tables and strict profits from those pay tables, and playing a strict positive pay table strategy, it doesn't matter what you do in a casino, and how you play whether you chance hunches or not -- or special plays or fifth card flipovers or not -- because you are gaining other "values" in your own personal financial balance sheet.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I've always stated that entertainment value is great. What I try to do is provide information to help people maximize that value. I really don't care if people play perfect strategy or positive games (and I've told you this previously on LVA). I simply try to provide factual information and point out when others are spewing BS.

Now, there are certain individuals who try and use BS for their personal advantage. I think you can figure out just who I'm talking about.

[quahaug]

[QUOTE=arcimede$;2935]Sorry, another logic fail. I never said anything about a session. I just stated a simple fact. You are trying to create an interpretation that doesn't exist.

The fact is I've quit while I was ahead many times. The difference is ... I didn't quit because I was ahead, I quit because I had played the amount I intended to play. That also carries over to the yearly situation. While I was ahead, it had nothing to do with when and why I quit playing.

Now, see the difference? See why your interpretation is not correct? The point Rob and Alan are trying to make is that they think quitting while ahead AS A STRATEGY is somehow beneficial. I've pointed out it makes no difference in the long run.Then why do you break down your play into sessions rather than saying "I'm ahead lifetime so far". I think you just can't stand the fact that that piece of s**t Rob could be right about anything!

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, I've always stated that entertainment value is great. What I try to do is provide information to help people maximize that value. I really don't care if people play perfect strategy or positive games (and I've told you this previously on LVA). I simply try to provide factual information and point out when others are spewing BS.

Now, there are certain individuals who try and use BS for their personal advantage. I think you can figure out just who I'm talking about.

I wouldn't call it "BS" but more like beliefs and strategies that you don't follow. I don't follow it all either, but I recognize that these are his beliefs. I think some of them are wrong, but he is certainly entitled to them. And someday he might prove the things we disagree about. I've offered to allow him to use this website to publish the proof about non-random and rigged machines. The invitation stands. He told me that the information is not yet available but could be in the future. In the meantime he is free to state his opinion just as you are free to state your opinion.

[arcimede$]

Then why do you break down your play into sessions rather than saying "I'm ahead lifetime so far". I think you just can't stand the fact that that piece of s**t Rob could be right about anything!

I break down my play into sessions because that is required by the IRS. If I get audited that's what they look at. Why are you so intent on creating something that does not exist? It's actually quite humorous seeing your mental gyrations when something is so easily explained and common knowledge among most gamblers.

[redietz]

When you think about it, the IRS has its own "Singer Play Strategy." Rather than allow you to claim a lifetime loss at some point, which would be fair since 99% of people lose lifetime, the IRS wants reality broken into sessions so it can gouge you whenever a session comes out positive. Now that's worse than using anybody's slot card!

Arci -- I suggest you aim your logical mind at the IRS and see if they are any more amenable to your arguments than Rob.

[quahaug]

arci "I break down my play into sessions"

[quahaug]

arci "I break down my play into sessions"

Just admit it, you will feel better long term!

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm getting confused here. Everyone plays "sessions" and that's not the issue. The issue is if quitting when ahead at the end of a particular session will help you be an overall winner.

Rob says that is part of his strategy, and I agree with him. I think if you find a "winning point" and end your session when you have reached that winning point, you will avoid giving the profit back and then some. I base that on my experience that in most sessions there is a point where I have a profit-- and sometimes a good profit. And when I keep playing after reaching that profit I tend to lose it plus more.

All this other stuff about the IRS is not relevant. The real issue is this: is quitting when ahead going to make you a long term winner?

[arcimede$]

Alan, if you believe machines are random and every hand is independent, then "is quitting when ahead going to make you a long term winner?" is clearly false.

You would have to believe that the hands you might get after that magic quit point will have a lower return than the hands you get whenever you return. Of course, that would require the machines to be non-random. Now you SHOULD understand why Singer constantly claims silly things like hot/cold cycles and other non-random events. It's the only way for his view to have any legitimacy at all. You either accept randomness and all that goes with it or you don't. You are trying to do both.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if you believe machines are random and every hand is independent, then "is quitting when ahead going to make you a long term winner?" is clearly false.

You would have to believe that the hands you might get after that magic quit point will have a lower return than the hands you get whenever you return. Of course, that would require the machines to be non-random. Now you SHOULD understand why Singer constantly claims silly things like hot/cold cycles and other non-random events. It's the only way for his view to have any legitimacy at all. You either accept randomness and all that goes with it or you don't. You are trying to do both.

Arc I don't think the two situations are related. Yes, I think every hand is random, and yes, I think that when you can quit when ahead -- or quit at a certain loss point -- in each session can make you a winner. And here is why I believe this:

Suppose you have a session bankroll of $500 and you set the following: Leave when up 5% or $25, and leave when down 2% or ten dollars. And you are playing a lower variance game such as 25-cents Jacks or Better or bonus poker. If you followed this you would be limiting your losses and you would allow yourself to have greater winners when they come.

I didn't get this from Rob, directly, but it is a tool used in trading stock options: cut your losses, and let your winners run. If it works in stocks, why wouldn't it work in video poker?

While I believe that the games are random we have all experienced winning runs and losing runs. There is no way to predict when these winning runs and losing runs will hit or how long they will last or when they will end. so you just follow this "rule of trading" and apply it to video poker.

Will it guarantee you a win? No. But it sure beats having no plan at all which allows you to just blow it all till there's nothing left of your bankroll.

[arcimede$]

Alan, you don't have to drive 2 hours to make a stock transaction. In your example you could lose 8 straight hands and lose $10. I've done it before several times. And, it might be 9/10 losses, 10/12, etc. Many way to lose only $10. BTW, why would you even take $500 if your going to leave when you're $10 behind?

In addition, stocks are supposedly a positive situation and you're not just betting on the value of the stock. You're also betting on how others will gamble. It's not apples-apples.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, this principle is from trading options: options in the stock market are simply a gamble. It is unlike trading actual shares in a company. So the principles of stock options trading applies to gambling in a casino, and vice versa.

Why the $500 bankroll for a loss limit of $10? Because you never gamble with scared money and if you don't have the mental support of a larger bankroll you will be scared into making the wrong plays. For example in video poker: you might hold a dealt flush with four to the royal instead of taking a shot at the royal if all or most of your money is in the machine.

[arcimede$]

Sorry Alan, if you are only going to lose $10 then there's no reason to bring any extra money. I am continually amazed at your inability to understand the most simple things.

[Alan Mendelson]

Of course you wouldn't understand, Arc. Because you only believe in numbers with no grasp of the psychology of gambling. If I had only ten dollars and ten dollars was my loss limit, I wouldn't even set foot in a casino.

If on the other hand all you have is ten dollars and you go to the casino prepared to lose that ten dollars, well... that's your problem.

And if you can't understand what I'm talking about then you are an addict.

edited to add: I'm going to repeat what I posted above, because I think this is critical to understanding why why you need a larger bankroll than your loss limit:

Why the $500 bankroll for a loss limit of $10? Because you never gamble with scared money and if you don't have the mental support of a larger bankroll you will be scared into making the wrong plays. For example in video poker: you might hold a dealt flush with four to the royal instead of taking a shot at the royal if all or most of your money is in the machine.

[arcimede$]

Of course you wouldn't understand, Arc. Because you only believe in numbers with no grasp of the psychology of gambling. If I had only ten dollars and ten dollars was my loss limit, I wouldn't even set foot in a casino.

If on the other hand all you have is ten dollars and you go to the casino prepared to lose that ten dollars, well... that's your problem.

And if you can't understand what I'm talking about then you are an addict.

Now let me see if I understand this correctly. You agree that $10 is a loss limit and you would never spend more than this with your approach. But, you need to take $500 with you because that changes ...... the psychology.

I'm sorry, that is just so profound I guess I missed how important it must be.

And to think I've only been bringing $3000 with me. I guess I should be bringing $20,000. That would change everything.

ROTFLMAO.

BTW, does that money start to tremble with it gets "scared"?

[redietz]

You can only get "scared into making the wrong plays" if you put some tremendously high value on playing more hands, as in "Oh my God, if I lose this, I cannot play anymore."

[Alan Mendelson]

Now let me see if I understand this correctly. You agree that $10 is a loss limit and you would never spend more than this with your approach. But, you need to take $500 with you because that changes ...... the psychology.

I'm sorry, that is just so profound I guess I missed how important it must be.

And to think I've only been bringing $3000 with me. I guess I should be bringing $20,000. That would change everything.

ROTFLMAO.

BTW, does that money start to tremble with it gets "scared"?

I appreciate your sarcasm but I think you understand the point. And my figures about bankroll and loss limit were for illustrative purposes, and not actual numbers.
Perhaps this doesn't apply to how you play video poker, Arc, but if you ever bought into a cash poker game you would certainly understand the concept of having a bankroll and betting only a fraction of it.
You would not, for example, sit down at a $100 buy in cash game if all you had to gamble was $100. You know that you would need three times that amount or five times that amount to be able to sit down at that table.
If you had only $100 -- and no more in your pocket -- you would be afraid to play any hand but AA or KK and you might never get those hands and simply be blinded out as you sit and wait.

In live poker, hands such as 9, 10 suited can be very powerful but you might never play them if your bankroll is so restricted.

And going back to my video poker analogy: a VP player with a very limited bankroll might hold a dealt flush when that flush has four to the royal.

It is the psychology of mastering your bankroll that gives you the ability to play better. To make better decisions. I understand this is a concept you can't grasp because you only go by the math. OK, so be it.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, if you had to face arci's problems--and especially the reason behind them--you'd cut him a little more slack by accepting that he's the smartest personality in video poker.

Remember, he's only here because I'm here, and the only way he can argue with you is by bringing me up now & then. Why, he undoubtedly thinks of me even when he looks at his wife....only I get around.