The Sisyphean Gambler

[arcimede$]

That's a wonderful piece of math Arc. I'll keep it in mind. ;-)

Nothing special about the math. Elementary statistics that all science/engineering/math/business majors should have been taught.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nothing special about the math. Elementary statistics that all science/engineering/math/business majors should have been taught.

Yes, but totally irrelevant.

[arcimede$]

Yes, but totally irrelevant.

Da plane, da plane .....

[redietz]

I've always wanted to be blessed by God, but worshipping satan all these decades has, I suppose, forced me to live a life of merely mortal probabilities.

You know, there's a character in Marvel Comics called The Scarlet Witch. She generates a field wherein probabilities are distorted according to her will. Reminds me of some folks.

[Alan Mendelson]

No one denies probabilities, but probabilities do not decide if someone will win or lose. As I've mentioned before -- my former neighbor who won the California lottery twice. Tough enough hitting it once, he did it twice in less than a year if I recall.

You can play any game and win. Perhaps your own betting and discipline can help you win where the probabilities say you won't. Skill can also overcome probabilities -- for example someone who can influence dice. (Stop -- Don't start that debate.)

You live by the math redietz and Arc and I am aware of the math. Which is why I realize that leaving after scoring a big win is the smart thing to do rather than play "six hours a day to score points" and to let the probabilities eat away at you.

The more you guys argue that math defines all, the more that Rob's way of playing looks better and better.

[arcimede$]

No one denies probabilities, but probabilities do not decide if someone will win or lose. As I've mentioned before -- my former neighbor who won the California lottery twice. Tough enough hitting it once, he did it twice in less than a year if I recall.

Probabilities predict there will be a few duplicate winners.

You can play any game and win. Perhaps your own betting and discipline can help you win where the probabilities say you won't. Skill can also overcome probabilities -- for example someone who can influence dice. (Stop -- Don't start that debate.)

Or someone who utilizes math knowledge to give them an edge.

You live by the math redietz and Arc and I am aware of the math. Which is why I realize that leaving after scoring a big win is the smart thing to do rather than play "six hours a day to score points" and to let the probabilities eat away at you.

The probabilities only "eat away at you" if you are playing a negative game. And then, they eat away at you every hand you play no matter when you choose to quit on any given day. If you are playing a positive game then the probabilities work for you on every hand. That's what randomness brings to the picture.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, for heaven's sake.. people lose playing positive games also. No matter what the probabilities say. Give it a rest.

[arcimede$]

Arc, for heaven's sake.. people lose playing positive games also. No matter what the probabilities say. Give it a rest.

The probabilities predict that some will lose.

[Alan Mendelson]

The probabilities predict that some will lose.

I thought that all of this time you were talking about how you are playing a positive expectation game and because you are at a positive expectation game you win?

In a positive expectation game you expect to win. Because in a positive expectation game the math says you will win over time.

But now you are say that:

The probabilities predict that some will lose.

Well, that means you're talking about something other than a positive expectation game.

So what are you talking about?

Perhaps you are talking about some bell curve of results for video poker players? Because you are not talking about the definition of a positive expectation game.

Please see: http://www.vpfree2.com/definitions/show/204

So since you are not justifying your ability to win at video poker because you have a positive expectation paytable, just what are you, and have you, been talking about all these months?

[arcimede$]

Yes, I'm talking about the bell curve. While it would be nice to claim that anyone playing a positive expectation will always win, it's simply not the case. That is why I talk about the "edge". The larger the edge the further to the right (winning side) is the bell curve. A person playing 10/6 DDB with a .06% edge has less than a 50% of winning even considering millions of hands.

However, a person with a 2% edge has well over a 95% edge if they play those same millions of hands.

So, it's all about choices. I just showed you that a person playing 8/5 BP at only 50K hands has a 83% chance of losing. Expand that to a few million hands and the number also goes up to over 95%. You might claim you're only playing a 100K hands a year, but over 20 years that will come out to 2 million hands.

So, which would you rather have ... 20 years with a 95+% chance of winning or 20 years with a 95+% chance of losing? Like I said, it's all about choices.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes, I'm talking about the bell curve. While it would be nice to claim that anyone playing a positive expectation will always win, it's simply not the case.

I hope Rob Singer reads this because it supports his entire, basic argument about long term "advantage play" being bogus.

Now, Arc, you have brought us back to reality that some players will do well, and some won't. Thank you. I'm not going to argue whether the distribution of winners and losers matches that of the standard bell curve because I don't know. All I've read are things like 97% of gamblers go home as losers because they didn't quit when they were showing wins.

Again I refer you to the interview I did with gaming author Victor Royer. The video is below and it starts out about the percentage of Vegas players who win and then lose. Royer says 86% are winners at some point, but less than 1% leave as winners.

[arcimede$]

What you fail to grasp is that a high percentage of those "winners at some point" occurs in the first few hands they play. It's not like 85% are winners after playing the first 4 hours. And, most of those winners are no more than a few dollars.

In addition, I'm not saying anything I haven't said before. Frank told you the same thing. And, none of this supports "his entire, basic argument about long term "advantage play" being bogus." I just showed you where you could have a 95% chance of winning vs. a 95% chance of losing and you want to claim long term play is bogus? I guess you must interpret those number in some strange way because it actually shows you the dufus is completely wrong about everything he's told you.

[redietz]

This is where I usually get horrified by what I slowly begin to grasp. Alan is an intelligent, successful human being functioning quite well in our American culture. And yet, and yet, he is either faking naivete, or he has absolutely no familiarity with probability. I cannot imagine a worldview without bell curves or probabilistic thinking. And I'm not a math guy, as I've said before.

Alan, what arci's saying doesn't make advantage play bogus -- it supports it and describes it. This is like creation/evolution "debates."

Probability is called "probability" due to the nature of what arci's described. Otherwise it would be called something else.

[redietz]

And I have to say this. I have no idea who Victor Royer is, but I know plenty of people who are "gaming authors," myself included. I can wax eloquent without data, without references, and be quite a charming "gaming author." My point -- quoting a "gaming author" isn't much of a piece of evidence. But you know that.

[arcimede$]

This is where I usually get horrified by what I slowly begin to grasp. Alan is an intelligent, successful human being functioning quite well in our American culture. And yet, and yet, he is either faking naivete, or he has absolutely no familiarity with probability. I cannot imagine a worldview without bell curves or probabilistic thinking. And I'm not a math guy, as I've said before.

I've often suspected Alan is faking it just to keep the conversation going. Hard to imagine anyone is that naive. But then, we went round and round on LVA as well, so ......

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, what arci's saying doesn't make advantage play bogus

First of all, redietz, please reread what I wrote above: "I hope Rob Singer reads this because it supports his entire, basic argument about long term "advantage play" being bogus."

I hope you understand that I was making reference to Rob Singer's belief.

I do believe in the concept of "advantage play" but I also believe that the money management tool of "quitting when ahead" and banking those wins is a vital part of advantage play. It seems however, that APers reject the concept of quitting while ahead and say it has no bearing on the "long term."

Well, it's my belief that quitting while ahead in individual sessions does make a difference on your long term, because the long term is made up of individual sessions.

You can easily find out who Victor Royer is. A simple search will show he has authored 14 different books. And I have to admit the content is more substantial than Rob's two books (Sorry Rob).

Again, you seem to be challenging this data about players being "ahead" at some point during their casino visits. Well, just add Royer's statement to the list. It seems there is a long line of experts who support the idea that a large percentage of casino gamblers are "ahead" at some point.

And regarding your comment about probability: of course I am aware and use probability when I play video poker or when I play craps or live poker. I have to. But we are not arguing or even discussing probability here. (At least I'm not.) I thought this entire discussion is about Rob's concept of quitting when ahead.

And quitting when ahead fits very nicely into all your considerations of probability this way: its not very probable that you are going to keep winning forever and that cold streaks are going to come along. Didn't Arc say games wouldnt be random without cold streaks? So, when you have a win take advantage of the probability that winning won't continue indefintely and leave and enjoy your win while you have it -- which is all Rob has said.

Honestly, I think both you and Arc and Frank too, if he were here, would have absolutely no criticism of a player who hit a royal flush and decided to quit playing, go to dinner, and go home and end the trip on a high note. Your criticism of the idea is that ROB SAID IT.

And my friend Arc... Arc wrote above "What you fail to grasp is that a high percentage of those "winners at some point" occurs in the first few hands they play. It's not like 85% are winners after playing the first 4 hours. And, most of those winners are no more than a few dollars."

Well, Arc, let me respond. Perhaps the win was in the first few hands. Frankly, I once hit quad aces in 8/5 Bonus for $2,000 on the third hand I played. I wish I had quit then because I went on to lose that $2,000 plus a couple thousand more. This was in a session late last year. And for many people going to Vegas their lives do not revolve around sitting at a machine, and they might value a win of "no more than a few dollars" more than you do. And me? Well there are many times I wish that I had gone home with only a win of a few dollars instead of a loss of thousands.

I'm gong to say this again for the umpteenth time: no one is arguing about math or probability here when we support Rob's concept of "quitting when ahead." We are talking about what makes someone feel better about playing in a casino. Most of us are not professionals and we are looking for a way to help us enjoy our entertainment gaming more and "quitting when ahead" can do that because the probability is that the longer we play the more risk of losing we face.

[arcimede$]

I'm gong to say this again for the umpteenth time: no one is arguing about math or probability here when we support Rob's concept of "quitting when ahead." We are talking about what makes someone feel better about playing in a casino. Most of us are not professionals and we are looking for a way to help us enjoy our entertainment gaming more and "quitting when ahead" can do that because the probability is that the longer we play the more risk of losing we face.

Alan, that is not what you have been previously saying. You've been claiming that you can beat the probabilities by quitting when you reach some kind of win goal. I've been telling you that is not true. For example, here's some statistics you might want to consider.

After 2 million hands of FPDW (100.75) you have a 98% chance of being ahead.
After 2 million hands of Bonus Poker (99.17) you have <1% chance of being ahead.
After 2 million hands of DDB (100.06) you have a 55% chance of being ahead.

You can easily see how much difference the edge provides.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, please don't twist things too much. You wrote: "Alan, that is not what you have been previously saying. You've been claiming that you can beat the probabilities by quitting when you reach some kind of win goal."

What I've been saying is that over the years I know that I have been ahead at some point in my sessions and had I quit when I was ahead I would be showing a profit today. And now, I have adopted this new strategy -- which means ending my lengthy (and costly) sessions trying to hit royals and being happy leaving with a win of several hundred dollars instead of before when I wouldnt leave a casino unless I was ahead $5k or more. (Yes, that was really the way I thought.) There were those few times when I did come home with a royal, or after hitting quad aces with a kicker in DDB -- but there were too many sessions when I didn't.

Now I am accepting the concept that small wins that add up over time can create a big winning account.

We do this playing live poker. You go into a $100 game, double up, and leave. Do that five days a week and you make $25,000 a year. That's smart in live poker, but why is it rejected in video poker? I've asked this over and over again and never seem to get a straight answer. Want to try now?

What's wrong with winning $100 a day in VP and leaving? As I've said here before, most times Im up $300 -- sometimes $500 -- at some point playing $5 8/5 bonus, but have lost it in pursuit of a royal.

[arcimede$]

Arc, please don't twist things too much. You wrote: "Alan, that is not what you have been previously saying. You've been claiming that you can beat the probabilities by quitting when you reach some kind of win goal."

What I've been saying is that over the years I know that I have been ahead at some point in my sessions and had I quit when I was ahead I would be showing a profit today. And now, I have adopted this new strategy -- which means ending my lengthy (and costly) sessions trying to hit royals and being happy leaving with a win of several hundred dollars instead of before when I wouldnt leave a casino unless I was ahead $5k or more. (Yes, that was really the way I thought.) There were those few times when I did come home with a royal, or after hitting quad aces with a kicker in DDB -- but there were too many sessions when I didn't.

Now I am accepting the concept that small wins that add up over time can create a big winning account.

We do this playing live poker. You go into a $100 game, double up, and leave. Do that five days a week and you make $25,000 a year. That's smart in live poker, but why is it rejected in video poker? I've asked this over and over again and never seem to get a straight answer. Want to try now?

See, you just said it again. You are trying to claim you can win every session. The problem is you can't make even $100 every time you play. So, I did not twist anything as you claimed.

What's wrong with winning $100 a day in VP and leaving? As I've said here before, most times Im up $300 -- sometimes $500 -- at some point playing $5 8/5 bonus, but have lost it in pursuit of a royal.

Because you are talking nonsense. You do not get ahead $300 or $500 every day. You need to get your butt off fantasy island and get back to the real world. You can win more often than you lose with a small win goal. But that is not winning every time and eventually you hit some bigger losses and all your wins are gone.