The Sisyphean Gambler

[Rob.Singer]

I don't blame arci one bit for making something else up on the go....and getting caught again doing it. After all, what else does he have left? Stimulation comes in many forms. I suspect that because today's Sunday, the missus thinks he's off to church asking for forgiveness (which should take quite some time). But where do you think he REALLY IS....

Where he took his latest wrong turn was in waffling between a term he previously would never use in describing anything about advantage play--the short term--and his misguided belief that it is all one lifelong term. Over the years I've found that the longer I've explained and discussed how we all only and always play in individual, unrelated short term bursts, all the so-called and self-proclaimed gurus & experts eventually find themselves doing exactly what arci has done here: they start talking in common sense, then either catch themselves and are ashamed for going out of character, or get reminded by another embarrassed party--and become predictably defensive. One of my discussions with Mike Shackleford provides another good example.

[arcimede$]

First time I ever saw the phrase "logical session" so please explain what it is.

A logical session is any grouping of hands you want to consider. It could be your life-time results, it could a year's play, it could be a month, it could be an hour. The physical session is bounded by your time in the casino.

[Alan Mendelson]

A logical session is any grouping of hands you want to consider. It could be your life-time results, it could a year's play, it could be a month, it could be an hour. The physical session is bounded by your time in the casino.

Oh, I get it. When I talk about a "logical session" it is a grouping of hands/plays that I set. Okay, then. Did I tell you about that logical session seven years ago when I was dealt a royal flush on my first hand? (The illogical session also includes about a hundred plays before I hit the royal and one more to clear the machine when they paid me._

Absurd.

[arcimede$]

I don't blame arci one bit for making something else up on the go....and getting caught again doing it. After all, what else does he have left? Stimulation comes in many forms. I suspect that because today's Sunday, the missus thinks he's off to church asking for forgiveness (which should take quite some time). But where do you think he REALLY IS....

Sorry to inform you that I don't belong to any church. You sure have it figured out, don't you. LOL.

I was at the casino today raking in around $1300. My first trip in over 2 weeks. That was close to my high for the day.

Once again you just have to laugh at the dufus claiming he is right and every mathematician and professional is wrong. It's absolutely hilarious when you think about it. There are probably millions of people capable of understanding VP math. Not one of them would agree with the dufus. Of course, anyone who believes he is right and the millions are wrong doesn't look too bright either.

[Rob.Singer]

Oh, I get it. When I talk about a "logical session" it is a grouping of hands/plays that I set. Okay, then. Did I tell you about that logical session seven years ago when I was dealt a royal flush on my first hand? (The illogical session also includes about a hundred plays before I hit the royal and one more to clear the machine when they paid me._

Absurd.

Soooo funny....he made something else up!
If this were Hunger Games, he'd be eaten alive!!!

[Rob.Singer]

Sorry to inform you that I don't belong to any church. You sure have it figured out, don't you. LOL.

I was at the casino today raking in around $1300. My first trip in over 2 weeks. That was close to my high for the day.

Once again you just have to laugh at the dufus claiming he is right and every mathematician and professional is wrong. It's absolutely hilarious when you think about it. There are probably millions of people capable of understanding VP math. Not one of them would agree with the dufus. Of course, anyone who believes he is right and the millions are wrong doesn't look too bright either.

No church affiliation? No kidding! To do what you've done, then expecting you have a relationship to some sort of deity would be like Bob Dancer not having to keep working!

PS: Given a choice between staying home with my sickly wife or going to a casino to get my gaming fix, what kind of person do you think would do the latter? It's all been said.

So goes love....or lack thereof.

[arcimede$]

Oh, I get it. When I talk about a "logical session" it is a grouping of hands/plays that I set. Okay, then. Did I tell you about that logical session seven years ago when I was dealt a royal flush on my first hand? (The illogical session also includes about a hundred plays before I hit the royal and one more to clear the machine when they paid me._

Absurd.

No, it's actually the way scientists often view areas of study. In order to compare things that may not be exactly alike they normalize those items. Since the results of that normalization are not real, they are by definition virtual. It's quite hilarious to see Alan claiming scientists must all be "absurd". But then, he appears to believe everything the dufus tells him instead of listening to mathematicians and professionals .... which puts it all in perspective.

[arcimede$]

No church affiliation? No kidding! To do what you've done, then expecting you have a relationship to some sort of deity would be like Bob Dancer not having to keep working!

Oh hey, I got a great idea. Let's get into a religious discussion. That ought to be interesting since the dufus appears to believe the Earth is less than 10K years old.

PS: Given a choice between staying home with my sickly wife or going to a casino to get my gaming fix, what kind of person do you think would do the latter? It's all been said.

So goes love....or lack thereof.

Once again we see the dufus is out in left field. The medical profession recommends that caregivers take an appropriate amount of time for themselves. I've literally been ask dozens of times if I'm getting away enough. But, the dufus now believes he is smarter than the entire medical profession. Not surprising since he believes he is smarter than all the mathematicians in the world.

Hey Alan, are you starting to get the picture yet? This guy is a complete loon. I think I've been too kind in calling him a dufus.

[Rob.Singer]

Ah-ha-ha-ha!! How about the truth arci? Time for yourself to go to a CASINO....where it all started? That's so despicable it's even low for you. I'd say you're getting exactly what you've asked for.

John Edwards has nothing on this guy.

[arcimede$]

Ah-ha-ha-ha!! How about the truth arci? Time for yourself to go to a CASINO....where it all started? That's so despicable it's even low for you. I'd say you're getting exactly what you've asked for.

John Edwards has nothing on this guy.

Another comment by the dufus ... another lie. My wife's problems started when she was diagnosed with type I diabetes at the age of 19. Casinos never had anything to do with her problems. But hey, maybe the dufus has secretly been following her around for decades and, since he knows more than anyone in the medical profession, we should listen to him. Bwah hahahahahaha.

I really do think I need a stronger name for this loon. Dufus just isn't strong enough.

As for my trips to the casino ... I actually hire an old friend of my wife's to come over and stay just in case something came up. This lady is a retired nurse who lives on SS so she really appreciates the money I pay her.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, it's actually the way scientists often view areas of study. In order to compare things that may not be exactly alike they normalize those items. Since the results of that normalization are not real, they are by definition virtual. It's quite hilarious to see Alan claiming scientists must all be "absurd". But then, he appears to believe everything the dufus tells him instead of listening to mathematicians and professionals .... which puts it all in perspective.

No Arc. Now you're being absurd. What's next? Showing how the odds of video poker draws relates to curing the national debt? Wiping out HIV? Telling us where Jimmy Hoffa is?

You have introduced us a new term for video poker discussion: "logical session." I never heard it from Bob Dancer, or John Grochowski, or Wizard of Odds Shackleford, or even from Singer!! But now, you tell us it is the standard for video poker analysis!!

Well, if you keep posting it, and create your own website or blog about it, eventually Google will pick it up, Wikipedia will create a page, and you, Arc, will be known as the father of "Video Poker Logical Session Analysis." And then the rest of us will be able to say with pride -- we were there at the moment of creation.

Of course you will have to get Dancer, Grochowski, Scott, Shackleford and everyone else to rewrite their books. Perhaps South Point or Station Casinos will hire you for a series of seminars? Hmmm, let's see: I predict your "logical session" of lectures will be...... ZERO.

[arcimede$]

No Arc. Now you're being absurd. What's next? Showing how the odds of video poker draws relates to curing the national debt? Wiping out HIV? Telling us where Jimmy Hoffa is?

Silly nonsense.

You have introduced us a new term for video poker discussion: "logical session." I never heard it from Bob Dancer, or John Grochowski, or Wizard of Odds Shackleford, or even from Singer!! But now, you tell us it is the standard for video poker analysis!!

I said nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out that people can view VP play in many ways.

This is all very simple stuff, Alan. For example, if you said you lost $xxx last month playing craps you are essentially defining a virtual session of one months play of craps. You're getting hung up on the word virtual. In this case it just means a different way of viewing data than the actual physical sessions. I thought most people understood what it meant. I guess I overestimated you.

Well, if you keep posting it, and create your own website or blog about it, eventually Google will pick it up, Wikipedia will create a page, and you, Arc, will be known as the father of "Video Poker Logical Session Analysis." And then the rest of us will be able to say with pride -- we were there at the moment of creation.

Of course you will have to get Dancer, Grochowski, Scott, Shackleford and everyone else to rewrite their books. Perhaps South Point or Station Casinos will hire you for a series of seminars? Hmmm, let's see: I predict your "logical session" of lectures will be...... ZERO.

If the point of this comment was to demonstrate your ignorance, I congratulate you on being very successful.

[redietz]

There's a lot of verbal debris floating around, but I think Arci's point is that if you canvass opinions about what's been discussed here regarding beating a negative game and quitting while ahead, you're going to have to choose between two camps. Either Rob and Alan (who has adjusted what he's said) were correct, or Arci and professional mathematicians are correct. Now I'm not a mathematician; the closest I came to any math understanding was playing basketball for the Penn State math department team. But I know a few folks who teach college statistics. One of the two camps is correct. Now it's possible that Rob and Alan have uncovered some heretofore unknown way of circumventing a negative expectation game, but I don't think it's likely. You can choose which camp is likely to be correct based on whatever criteria you want; it's a free country.

[Rob.Singer]

Another comment by the dufus ... another lie. My wife's problems started when she was diagnosed with type I diabetes at the age of 19. Casinos never had anything to do with her problems. But hey, maybe the dufus has secretly been following her around for decades and, since he knows more than anyone in the medical profession, we should listen to him. Bwah hahahahahaha.

I really do think I need a stronger name for this loon. Dufus just isn't strong enough.

As for my trips to the casino ... I actually hire an old friend of my wife's to come over and stay just in case something came up. This lady is a retired nurse who lives on SS so she really appreciates the money I pay her.

Got to you, huh! Maybe you could possibly have used even more words to try to lie your way out of it? So you're blaming it all on the teenage years....ROTFLMAO!!! Either way, you caused her downfall, and now, while my wife and I enjoy going out, traveling, shopping and more, sounds like you two created exactly what you deserved. Poor baby....chin up!

So goes love....or lack thereof.

[Rob.Singer]

There's a lot of verbal debris floating around, but I think Arci's point is that if you canvass opinions about what's been discussed here regarding beating a negative game and quitting while ahead, you're going to have to choose between two camps. Either Rob and Alan (who has adjusted what he's said) were correct, or Arci and professional mathematicians are correct. Now I'm not a mathematician; the closest I came to any math understanding was playing basketball for the Penn State math department team. But I know a few folks who teach college statistics. One of the two camps is correct. Now it's possible that Rob and Alan have uncovered some heretofore unknown way of circumventing a negative expectation game, but I don't think it's likely. You can choose which camp is likely to be correct based on whatever criteria you want; it's a free country.

Rob has, as explained, on a session-by-session basis. And I expect if you compared arci's lone degree if he even has one (remember how we were all duped by Frank....) with my undergrad EE and MBA from BC, you'd understand who the real professional is. You see, people who communicate on the Internet and have a weak background ALWAYS use formulas, theories and use lots of numbers to describe what their mind cannot. They typically use lots of time to gather Internet searches that fit their argument or spin it appropriately. We were treated to a ton of Frank's "self-taught" BS in a slick cover-up effort. And while I've been onto arci's game for years, it's enjoyable watching him continue to dance and make things up. In fact, I tingle.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz you continue to make the same mistake. If you look at the math of a negative expectation game, you will lose over the long term. there is no doubt about this. but should you choose an exit point, and you have a positive exit point, you will leave a winner.

I think you understand that.

So the question becomes: can you leave a winner a sufficient number of times to offset the sessions when you lose?

Rob says he's done that, and his combined wins from negative expectation games has totaled nearly a million dollars. I have tried that and I see how it can work. However, I don't have ten years of practicing this, as Rob did, but my experience has been that in nearly every session of play there is a time when I have shown a profit -- even if only $1.

What Rob's "quitting when ahead" system does is substitute the art of knowing when to quit with the science of the math of video poker.

What is really crazy here is that the rules of science are being applied to an art form. If the math guys would take a step back and realize that Singer also agrees that you can't beat a negative expectation game unless you do something different, we might all be in agreement.

I've said it here and on the LVA forum over and over again -- and I am not an advocate of Rob's system. I've looked at it as a reporter would. We know you cannot beat in the long term a negative expectation game. And Rob will tell you the same thing. The way to win -- and to beat it -- is in the art of when and how you play it, and when you don't play it. This is really what should be discussed here: the "artful decision Rob makes to cash out." He admits it is based on personal experience, and frankly a lot of us have these non-scientific personal experiences that tell us the same thing.

Right now there is a print by the late German artist Herbert Schneider above my desk. Schneider's art is basically abstract art. If I were to make an analogy here:

Schneider is to an architect's blue prints, what Singer is to conventional video poker play.

[arcimede$]

Got to you, huh! Maybe you could possibly have used even more words to try to lie your way out of it?

It's just hard to resist pointing out how stupid most of your comments have become.

So you're blaming it all on the teenage years....ROTFLMAO!!!

My goodness. You must be the most ignorant man on the planet. I thought most people knew type I diabetes is an auto-immune disease which is generally considered to be hereditary. It is also called juvenile diabetes because it generally shows up at a young age. It has nothing to do with a person's "teenage years" and what they did or did not do. It is also possible the Epstein-Barr virus may play a role.

Either way, you caused her downfall

Totally hilarious. I guess I must have been the one who introduced her parents to each other. Not sure how I managed that before I was born.

You are really complete clueless, aren't you. You're already about 10' into this hole of yours but you keep digging away.

[arcimede$]

What Rob's "quitting when ahead" system does is substitute the art of knowing when to quit with the science of the math of video poker.

What is really crazy here is that the rules of science are being applied to an art form. If the math guys would take a step back and realize that Singer also agrees that you can't beat a negative expectation game unless you do something different, we might all be in agreement.

Sorry Alan, but your statement is nonsense. Let's reword what you just said. {What Rob's system does is substitute the art of knowing the answer is 5 when presented with the problem ... what is 2+2.}

Do you really believe a system can change 2+2 to make it equal 5? No? Well, that is EXACTLY the equivalent of what you just said. The math for VP is trivial. There is no way to avoid it just like there is no way to avoid the fact that 2+2 = 4.

Alan, you are blinding yourself to reality because you don't understand the math. I just made it easier for you. If you believe quitting while ahead can change your return then you must also believe 2+2 can equal 5 by just writing the numbers a little more artfully.

There's a reason why all the mathematicians disagree with you. They know this stuff is really simple. If you want to continue to believe in fantasies, feel free. Just know that any knowledgeable person will think you are a fool.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you totally missed what I wrote. This has nothing to do with changing the value of 2+2. I give up.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you totally missed what I wrote. This has nothing to do with changing the value of 2+2. I give up.

Alan, I was using 2+2 as an analogy. It is a level of math I'm sure you understand. You realize there is no artsy you can add 2 and 2 and get anything but 4. If someone tried to tell you they could get 5 out of adding 2 and 2 with some special movement of their hand, you would think they are full of it. Right?

Well, what I'm telling you is the claim that you can overcome the expectation of a game by cashing out when you are ahead is EXACTLY equivalent. You just don't have the mathematical knowledge to understand it. But, it's just as true as the 2+2 analogy.

I'm sorry you don't like the answer. That doesn't change reality.