I already know they would agree with me so the answer is easy. I'm using simple, standard statistics. The same statistics used all over the world in science and business.
I already know they would agree with me so the answer is easy. I'm using simple, standard statistics. The same statistics used all over the world in science and business.
I don't disagree with the math. I don't disagree with the idea of "expected return." All I am saying is that if you control when you stop playing, and manage to put away profit after profit, you will always have a profit.
Actual return is what you actually put into your pocket or actually lose. If I play a machine with an expected return of 99.7% but I lose 100% of my money, then my actual return was zero on a game with an expected return of 99.7%.
That's my position. If you find fault with what I am saying, Redietz or Arc, go to it.
I suggested before that we are arguing over terminology. I do not disagree with your math or statistics. And for that matter -- NEITHER WILL ROB.
Alan, you are claiming that you will always be ahead at some time in a session. That is not true. You could go to a casino many times and never, ever be ahead. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Or, as I stated before. If it was true, then the machines would not be random.
It's a simple question to all of you:
What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?
Can you be convinced that you are wrong?
Of course I could be convinced. Just show me the math. I've made math mistakes before and I will again. I'd have no problem with anyone showing me I had made a mistake.Originally Posted by redietz
It's one thing to accept the math and make a mistake. It's quite another to deny math works. That is what Alan and Rob are doing.
If you can convince me that "expected return" is the same as "actual return" then I would be wrong.Originally Posted by redietz
Arc wrote: "Alan, you are claiming that you will always be ahead at some time in a session. That is not true. You could go to a casino many times and never, ever be ahead."
You are taking my statements to the extreme, and perhaps I am at fault. So let me restate things and see if this makes a difference in your argument:
A. I think it is possible for many gamblers to quit when they are showing a profit. I think that many gamblers are ahead at some point. Rob quoted John Grochowski that something like 96% of gamblers are ahead at some point during their casino visit. I personally have been ahead at some point during many casino visits.
B. Yes, I agree there are probably gamblers who have never been ahead during a casino visit.
Now, a question Arc: Do you agree that if a player managed to limit his losses to small losses, but also managed to cash out with a profit, that the combined profits can outweigh the small combined losses?
EDITED TO ADD: Please see the difference in the definition of "expected return" and "actual return" here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/...#axzz1s4RIrvpr
I also ask that you research your own definition of the terms.
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 04-14-2012 at 07:06 PM.
Arc I have a rude awakening for you, and Rob will also say this: Neither one of us deny the math. What we are suggesting is that you play a certain way, and manage your money so that the long term play (the math) does not eat away at your bankroll which is what the math says will happen.Originally Posted by arcimede$
Are we understanding each other yet?
During my six plus years as an advantage player, just like arci here and neurotically on every vp forum that's ever existed, NO ONE &NOTHING COULD HAVE CONVINCED ME THAT I WAS WRONG because I looked at the game being 100% of and by the math. So following it by the book would simply not allow any other opinion, suggestion, or type of knowledge to seep in and corrupt that which I held sacred.Originally Posted by redietz
Since I woke up from that nonsense, I have since found that I indeed WAS wrong with that type of narrow-minded/casino-induced thinking. But what would convince me that I am wrong today (talking about my play strategy here)? Well, because I've already been on the AP side of the fence, and because I've spent over ten years winning over $980,000 playing my new strategy, and because a large part of my success is owed to understanding how very important it is to do exactly the opposite as the casinos want and expect all players to do, and because I have as much as or more formal math & business education than all of my critics-which played an integral part in the development of SPS, I cannot think of anything that could convince me that I have been wrong. You see, where people like arci live and die by the theory of it all, I am the only person who has ever actually lived the REALITY of both sides of the fence. That's the difference between merely sitting at home behind a computer screen wildly throwing up unsupported accusations based on what theory says might occur given certain fixed circumstances and knowledge....and having the resources to see what ACTUALLY by actually doing it. You know, like I did by going out and getting a new IGT vp machine and all the test equipment, while Frank wastes his time on some sort of silly utility when I already did all the real work and have real results.
More insupportable theory talking again. You need to watch more of Bill O'Reilly, that is, if you're allowed to, and see how often he mocks people like youOriginally Posted by arcimede$
Alan, yesterday I decided to walk over to Terribles to test out that which you & I already know to be true, but that which arci believes his theory trumpet reality without ever taking the time to understand the mathematics behind the nonsense he regurgitates.
At their bar they have a bunch of 5c/10c/25c/50c/$1/$2 machines with BP on them. So my test was to sit there as long as I could stand it and play ARTT thru those six levels, quit whenever I got ahead by 5c minimum, then I'd start again. I did that to simulate each session being a separate casino visit and record the actual percentage I was actually ahead based on a total number of "visits". Now if you remember correctly, Groch said around 95%, I said around 95%, and you agreed that it's high. But alas, arci has no knowledge of what it.might be because he wants everyone to be wrong about it, and is likely at this moment trying to manufacture some type of contradicting theory that in his mind, puts reality out of business!
Well, here's the actual results: I lasted long enough to play 114 sessions. I got ahead at least 5c 110 times. Now we all know that it's never gonna be reasonable for any player to walk in and leave with five cents in profit, but that wasn't the point of my exercise. Arci claims "statistics theory" doesn't allow for our numbers to be correct. What this shows--and anyone can do it--is, BIG SURPRISE--he's once again wrong about something having to do with using actual numbers.
Yawn.....
Although not important, some may want to know my overall won/lost results. I won $480. I lost four $800 sessions, and the wins totalled $3680. I got one $1600 W2G.
Last edited by Rob.Singer; 04-14-2012 at 08:53 PM.
Rob, I think you will agree that this is not a dispute over whether or not your system works, or whether or not you walked into Terrible's and walked out with a nice profit, or even that you recorded "x number" of simulated sessions with a profit.
The issue really comes down to a definition of terms here: and they are "expected return" versus "actual return."
I'm afraid our friend Arc fails to realize that we are discussing "actual return" and he fails to realize that we are not disputing the "expected return" of any game or pay table.
The difference is that the "actual return" will vary based on other variables such as when you decide to cash out. It is generally accepted that the "expected return" or "expected value" of all games is based on the long term. When you deviate from the theoretical long term your actual return can vary. And, in fact, even over the long term your actual return can vary from the expected value. One individual player will never know if their "actual return" will deviate from the "expected return" or will match the "expected return" until they're dead.
it is also important to note that the "expected return" is based on "perfect play" so if an advocate of "expected return" makes just one error in their play they blew a lifetime of "expected return." That is a heavy burden for a follower of "expected return" to carry.
Rob, please join me in making this point clear to Arc:
ARC, WE ARE NOT DISPUTING THE MATH, OR THE EXPECTED RETURN OF ANY GAME. WE ARE SIMPLY SAYING THAT YOUR ACTUAL RETURN CAN BE IMPROVED DEPENDING ON HOW YOU PLAY AND MANAGE YOUR MONEY. AND YES, YOUR ACTUAL RETURN COULD ALSO BE WORSE THAN THE EXPECTED RETURN, OR IT CAN BE THE SAME AS THE EXPECTED RETURN DEPENDING ON HOW YOU PLAY AND MANAGE YOUR MONEY.
Of course ACTUAL RETURN will almost always be different from the theoretically EXPECTED RETURN, and that IS because of the math. But as you've seen, actual return has no meaning to AP's, because they only go by theory....or in other words, how many phantom bucks they can accumulate within each casino visit. Why else do you think arci wastes away so many hours at the machines during each "sneak out the back door" casino visit, when he has much more important things to take care of at home?
As a former AP, theory is what keeps them going Alan. It gives them justification for accepting their losses and moving on, it gives them confidence that "it'll all be OK in the end", and it allows them to manufacturer a mathematically-created amount of "phantom bucks" in their minds that keeps them going on a day-by-day basis. These same biases and misguided set of beliefs are the very same properties that will not only never allow them to see that most players are ahead at some point in time on most casino visits--these people won't even TRY to find it out for themselves, simply because theory tells AP's they will lose around 70% of the time.
It all boils down once again, and sadly, to either believing in theory or actually living the experience and seeing actual results that can never be disputed. Alan, why else do you think arci is such an angry, conflicted man who needs to always follow me around on Internet forums?
Rob,
Is there a big difference in the results from advancing 4 denominations instead of 6? Thanks.
There's a difference in being able to win more sessions because of the two additional levels, but the bigger difference is because of the higher denominations you'll be playing.
You guys are so confused it is quite hilarious. Ever heard of a bell curve? No one claims that any player will precisely see the expected return of a game. Actual returns will vary considerably at low sampling rates (hands) but eventually converge on the expected return. And, there is no betting system that can change the return of a random/fair game. That's not theory, it has been proven. All you are doing with your win goals and loss limits is working a betting system.
Don't confuse markets with random VP games. Markets are not random.
? So whenever I was playing at 5 credits and the machine showed signs of being in a hot cycle and I bumped it to 25 credits and hit a Royal, what happened to the bell curve?Originally Posted by arcimede$
From what I understand the RNG is reseeded whenever you change denominations or games. Hence, if there was such a thing as a warm/cold cycle you would have changed the mode as a result of your action.Originally Posted by slingshot
I wonder how many times you changed to .25 denomination and did not hit a RF or any good hands. Would you admit it?
Poor arci, all alone here too
I haven't seen or heard anyone here say a "betting system" can change the return of any game. In fact, Alan has said multiple times that he knows of no one around here who questions the math. Your problem (aside from the very obvious, which I have absolutely no issue at all with laughing at) is you assume so much theory that you never take the time to actually read written words. Try doing better at it, and you won't have to feel so alone here too!
Here's the point Alan, that people who see every real life situation and issue as a conflict of some sort, will never get. Let's say we take two simple numbers like 3 and 4, and add them together. The sum equals 7, now and forever, and there is nothing that can or ever will change that. Everyone has to agree: what we have here is a known finite solution, aka an actual result.
Now let's look at video poker, a game grounded in the math. But because its results are not known, absolute, or finite due to requiring a RNG spit out numbers along with human choices being a big part of that process, the results that actually occur can be a million miles away from what probability theory expects them to be, and it is entirely possible that the more opportunities that occur, the further from expectation the results will be--even if not only for those human selections. Anything can actually happen when the answer is only theoretical and is not finite, and when human choice becomes a part of the overall equation, it is not a stretch to expect to see the unexpected.
People blinded by what the math books say will forever take issue with human ability being capable of producing results that do not line up with or even follow expectation. They simply see every issue as being explained by hard numbers, and they would sooner become robotic loners, conflicted & argumentative misrepresenters, or just die off than face the fact that something can be more than they've always envisioned it to be. Thus, the crazy and continued unsupportable positions we see by the self-proclaimed AP's all over the forums, and as we've seen from arci here, the additional frustration of building a swiss cheese argument without even reading that which he's responding to.
Sorry dufus, your long diatribe is nothing but nonsense. I already stated that results were defined by a bell curve. That is not "hard numbers" as you tried to assert in your usual ridiculous manner. The difference is I realize a person has no control over where they will appear within the bell curve while you try to claim a person can control their results through a silly betting system.
Your claims have been mathematically PROVEN to be false. My claims are a simple application of standard statistics.
It's always interesting to see you scramble around and try to assert your own vision of reality. And yes, there will always be a few suckers who fall for it. As usual I just provide the facts. The people who aren't smart enough to understand these facts will simply have to learn the hard way.
Arci, are we to understand, then, that if we took Rob's arguments to world-class mathematicians that they would uniformly disagree with him? I mean, there is an entire universe of math experts out there who don't give a rat's behind about video poker or AP's and who do not have a dog in the hunt. Surely they could break down and analyze the mathematical logic of all this. Rob may be a video poker expert par excellence, but he doesn't have a monopoly on math.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote