I noticed Alan didn't come up with all the facts on the Reno team. Evidently he agrees that he does not know all the facts.
Only a dufus would believe something based on limited information ... oh wait, that's exactly what Singer did.
I noticed Alan didn't come up with all the facts on the Reno team. Evidently he agrees that he does not know all the facts.
Only a dufus would believe something based on limited information ... oh wait, that's exactly what Singer did.
Arc, I ignored your silly statements. I am sure that the "Reno Team" is still playing 25-cent video poker somewhere. Are you this argumentative all the time? Geesh. Argue over the Reno Team and what they are doing?? Why not stick to the real issue, which if I recall, is about how even those who follow the math can and do lose, and why cashing out and leaving with profits can help your long term bottom line.Originally Posted by arcimede$
But wait -- I can answer this whole thing for you.
It doesn't matter. You will play your way, and the rest of us will play our way. And some will play your way too. Good luck with it. I guess it's unfortunate for me that I have to wait 170,000 hands between royals and I can't find the games with a greater than 2% edge.
You're a lucky man. Enjoy the fresh air on Mt. Olympus.
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 04-09-2012 at 05:20 PM.
And that is what this is all about Arc... the time it takes to all average out. I don't have that much time in casinos. I don't want to spend that much time in casinos. If I had all that time I guess I would live and die by the 2% edge (if I could find it!). Instead, I will take the profits when they come and be happy.Originally Posted by arcimede$
Be happy Arc. You are the king of video poker. And you are the master of time.
Alan, remember, arci's been living in a virtual vp world ever since....well, ever since he and his AP wife team lost their shirts trying to pretend they could use the LV casinos as their own personal ATM's. So while he keeps on getting bitterly reminded of his mistakes of the past every time he cooks a meal, today he is never wrong and has all the answers because he HAS to.
I'd humor him if you want to read his entire theoretical outlook as told from Father Time's chair of regret. Just keep in mind that what are obvious lies and misrepresentations by him to you & I are nothing but residual fact to anyone residing in a virtual world of penance.
You're sure the Reno team is playing ".25-cent video poker". Ok, show me your evidence. I'm willing to listen.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Obviously, you don't have a clue what they are doing. You are starting to make things up just like the dufus. Maybe you should wonder why you need to make up stories when you don't know all the facts. It makes you look desperate.
Once again you start trying to relate individual events to long term results. You just want to believe that one bad electron will make all TVs fail forever. Sorry to tell it like it is, Alan. You are in denial of basic facts. You WANT to believe a certain way so you manufacture stories like the Reno team being long term losers when you have no idea if they've won or lost. Look, I have no problem with you playing however you like. I've told you that many times. Just quit trying to imply that math doesn't apply to you or anyone who happens to decide to cash out when they get ahead.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
He's irked---and getting irkier'd!
OK, so now arci wants proof that the former Reno team of geniuses is in fact playing 25c vp! Alan could post interview notes with actual initials, he could name real names, he could put up pictures....and arci still wouldnt't accept the reality of it all because it just doesn't fit into his world of theory. Hmmm....I wonder how pertinent all his "theory" really is as he can't help but look around at all the hopelessness he's created trying to believe in all that theory.
Arcimedes wrote: "You're sure the Reno team is playing ".25-cent video poker". Ok, show me your evidence. I'm willing to listen."
Gosh Arc. Add to the list of things I am lousy at and under "video poker" add "sarcastic writing." I'm just a bad writer of sarcasm. You're right, I have no idea what the Reno team is doing now. But what I do know is that for the last three jackpots that they were at Rincon trying to get the team lost out to another player and since then the team has not been back for any of the other big royal progressives there. Since I'm a bad writer of sarcasm I will be point blunt: even teams with all their money and organization and smart "advantaged play" can't be assured of winning. And as we all know Arc, going by your math, playing a 9/5 DDB progressive game without hitting the big royal they ended up losing on those three advertures trying to hit those big royals. Thanks for pointing out my failure in writing sarcasm... I won't try it again.
Arc, you also wrote: "Once again you start trying to relate individual events to long term results." Aha!! You caught me again. Yes, Arc, I was talking about individual events -- my events. And this is because I am an individual player. So, I guess the thing for me to do is something like this: the next time I am playing VP and the player on the same bank of games hits a royal I will ask them to share their royal with me because we are all playing the same long term game and the royals all come to all players over time. I'm sure that the player who hit the royal will understand this concept that their royal didn't belong to them but really belonged to all players playing over all time. In case the player doesn't want to share their royal with me, would you please explain to them that their individual results were really part of the long term results of all players and they should share?
Oh, and can I ask all of the other players in the casino to share in my losses as well because we are all part of the same long term equation that you live by?
Yep, that's the solution: all casino play should now be "community play." Since we are all playing our share of the long term, we should all pool our individual play and share our individual wins with the community. Yep, you got it Arc!!!
(Darn, I'm trying to be sarcastic again.)
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 04-10-2012 at 12:53 AM.
Alan, I've lost 3 times in a row many times. I bet you have too. But, you're going to make a big deal out of seeing a group of only 4 players lose 3 times. You really are desperate, aren't you.
Alan, I could see through your attempt to hide behind sarcasm. I wasn't going to let you get away with it. You try that all the time when you're backed into a corner. Rather than make any attempt to improve your knowledge, you just close your eyes. That's a big reason you still believe in fantasies.
The result of yet another hard day at the homestead, perhaps?
Arc, do the math for me: there are five seats for the progressive, with four of the 5 seats occupied by the team. Three times in a row they lost to the fifth seat. Unlikely? Yes. But my only point in bringing it up is to show that you can't always depend on the math. Therefore, WHEN YOU HAVE A PROFIT YOU TAKE IT.Originally Posted by arcimede$
Now, what is the fantasy that you are talking about? I think I am more anchored to reality than you are. LOL
Arc, why can't you say "yes, take the profit. no one ever went broke taking a profit"??
Why can't you say that? Is it because "taking a profit" violates all that you live by, which is that every play you make on a positive expectation game gives you an edge? Arc, can you take an edge to the bank? Can you buy a gallon of gas with an edge? Can you pay your rent in edges? Is there a country with an exchange rate for edges? How many edges in a dollar? Can you divide an edge into quarters?
Let's turn the discussion around for a minute and let me ask you this question:
Give me one reason why quitting with a profit will HURT your bottom line either in the short run or the long run?
Alan, remember when Bob Dancer won that $40k jeep at the M that cost him $80k in losing, yet he blabbed how great a play it still was and how he'd be right back at it if the promo continued? Well, that's what these people claim to live by. To them, the theory is their god. They put far more value in all those phantom bucks "earned" on every hand over actual money in the bank. Dancer may have ended up $40k short, but the play was a theoretical $6k overall winner and that's what he chose to crow about. It's all part of his and others like arci's claiming that they win so many years. Like Frank, who even when he loses he ends up ahead because of his little salary, the AP's simply account for their theoretical win--aka "phantom bucks"--in their summarization of results.
Gee Rob, do you think they pay taxes on their phantom bucks that they win?
Sorry, what does the fact they lost have to do with "taking a profit". They never had a profit in these cases. You do realize that if they would have won the progressive they would have left, right? When playing progressives that are only positive due to the RF an APer always leaves when they win.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nope, you seem to think your fairy godmother changes the return of the games you play if you leave with a profit and then magically you can do the same thing every time even though you are playing a negative game.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've already told you many times there is nothing wrong with leaving when you are ahead. However, my point was and still is you will not change the return of the games. Over time you will still approach the return of the games no matter when you choose to leave.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I never said it would. Clearly, you never read my responses or you would already know that. As I said above, it has nothing to do with "hurting" you. It is about believing that it will help you. For example, yesterday I played for about an hour before I finally went ahead about $200 (first time in my last 3 trips where I was ever ahead). I could have left, but I stayed on and about an hour later I was $1000 ahead. I kept playing and by the time I left I had won over $2800. Had I followed the quit while ahead strategy I would have lost out on the additional $2600.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You see it works both ways. That's how randomness works out. There is no "special" time to quit that will change the long term expectation of the game. That is what I've been telling you that you seem to be completely incapable of understanding.
Finally, if you are playing negative games then quitting at any time is preferable to continued play. In fact, not playing at all is the best monetary strategy.
Arc, here is the essence of our disagreement... again.
You wrote: I've already told you many times there is nothing wrong with leaving when you are ahead. However, my point was and still is you will not change the return of the games. Over time you will still approach the return of the games no matter when you choose to leave.
Let's take this point by point, because there are several here:
1. "I've already told you many times there is nothing wrong with leaving when you are ahead." Very good, we agree on something.
2. "my point was and still is you will not change the return of the games." Here is where you are either wrong, or you misspoke. You misspoke if what you meant was the "expected return" of the game. Indeed, cashing out never changes the "expected return" of the game. But when you cash out always changes the return of the game. Example: On the very first hand you play of jacks or better you hit two pair, which returns 10 coins for the 5 you bet. You cash out, and your return on this game is now in excess of the expected return of 99.5% -- and if your starting bankroll was, for example, only 5 coins you have had a 200% return on the game. This is because you just doubled your money.
3. Over time you will still approach the return of the games no matter when you choose to leave. Here again is the same misspeak or error. Over time you will approach the expected return of the game, but when you choose to leave will effect the actual return on your bankroll.
So consider Mr. Average player who goes into a casino with approximately $400 -- which is what the average player goes into a casino with, says the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. If Mr. Average player hits a "winner" and is now up $100 his actual return on his visit is 125%.
Of course there is no guarantee that you will always hit a winner that puts you "up" on your trip. But, my experience has been that more times than not, and with my starting bankroll, there is a time when I am showing a 20% gain on my bankroll.
Now, let's go to Rob's strategy of increasing the denominations being played during a session. As you increase the denominations played, Rob believes you will eventually (in many cases) hit a big winner that will offset your previous losses and allow you to reach the win goal you have set. I have never changed denominations according to Rob's strategy, but Rob says his system of increasing denominations and setting and keeping to win goals has worked a larger percentage of the time. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't -- I don't know.
But I do know that had I used his strategy I would have had more winning sessions than losing sessions. Sure there were times when I had a big win followed by another big or bigger win. There was one session a few years ago when I turned $800 of free play into $11,000 because of successive big wins. But had I cashed out each time I had met a $500 win goal I think I would have avoided many sessions when I not only gave back the $500 I won, but also would have not lost several thousand dollars more.
There is our difference. It's a matter of "return" versus "expected return." Expected return will never change no matter what -- I agree. Your actual return will change depending on when you do cash out. Keep cashing out with a profit and you will never have the expected return of any negative expectation video poker game.
I hope I did a decent job of explaining and interpreting what Rob's win goal system is all about.
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 04-13-2012 at 07:48 AM. Reason: typo corrected
You did a good job explaining Alan, but you know arci will never accept anything that might contradict what he wants and needs to believe about how the books say the math will work out. For instance, John Grochowski wrote an article years ago when I started playing professionally about how something like 96% of all gamblers in a casino at any given time have been ahead on their visit, yet 95% of those will go home losers. Now that's pretty close to my having been ahead in over 95% of my sessions, but I only went home a loser 15% of the time. I also know you have experienced similar results regarding having been ahead in your casino visits.
Do you think arci would ever understand how reality enters the issue and trumps useless theory?
Sorry Alan, you simply are wrong. there's no simple way to put it. When I state that when you quit won't change change the expected return. I mean it anyway you want to interpret it. The math is quite simple and there's no way around it.
You simply don't understand. Not only that, you refuse to accept that the math works out that way. I suspect there's a little selective memory coming into play as well. Now, you can certainly go ahead and try whatever method you like. In fact, as I said earlier, if you are playing a negative game then anything that gets you to quit is better than continuing to play. However, that is simply because the games are not positive.
As for any one of the dufus systems. Any progressive system exchanges more sessions wins for a few bigger losses. So, you will win more often but you won't win any more or less over time. Eventually things even out.
You really need to think about your assertion that people always get ahead at some time. If that was true then people would never lose. If you believe in random machines then there's no difference between when you first start and the moment you are deciding whether to quit. If you think you always get ahead then you should always get ahead after that winning point too. Otherwise, the machines are not random.
Last edited by arcimede$; 04-14-2012 at 05:48 PM.
The math itself has nothing to do with theory. It IS a statement of reality. When you hand someone two oranges, one at a time, you are doing math. 1+1=2. When you play VP you are also doing math. And, like it or not, the math is the reality. Only a dufus thinks otherwise.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
No, Arc, you don't understand the difference between "expected return" and "actual return" or what you put into your pocket.
Alan, see my addition to the above post. I understand what you are claiming. It is simply false.
The fascinating aspect of these posts is this: what would it take to convince any of the three people (Arci, Alan, Rob) that he was wrong?
Arci, what would convince you that you were wrong?
Alan, same question.
Rob, same question.
Now, there are at least 10,000 people teaching college stat mathematics in this country. If all of them agreed that one of your interpretations was correct, what would your responses be?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote