The Sisyphean Gambler

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay, Arc, let's say there's a bell curve. (Really? First time I ever heard of a bell curve in video poker.) So, suppose you have the savvy to get out at the higher levels of the bell curve, and and not ride it all the way down? That's really what this whole strategy about "quitting when ahead" is all about. It's quitting when you're ahead on "your bell curve." (Really? A bell curve?)

Arc you keep throwing in math when math is not the issue. For the umpteenth time, no one disputes the math. Unless you are now saying that the math of video poker says you cannot stop playing... ever. Are you saying that, Arc? Are you saying it is wrong to bank your wins and your profits?

The issue here is having the sense, the good judgment, and making the decision to stop playing and go home... so you have some profits to play again another day.

I just got back from playing poker all night. I bought in to a $100-$300 game. I started with $300. When I had $950 I said to myself I would leave when I had either $1,000 or $900. Well, I lost about eight hands ($3 big blind), and fortunately I didn't lose much before I folded my cards... so I cashed out with $908... a $608 profit. Parking was $5 at The Bike, I tipped the valet a buck going in, and $1 going out.

That gives me a net profit of $601 to play poker with next time. (That was my net win, after I tipped for the food service which was free for the $100 and up games.)

Arc, are you saying that cashing out a win/profit of $608 is wrong at video poker? If you tell me it was wrong cashing out at live poker, I'd say: okay... and I hope to be wrong like that many, many more times in the future. And if it's wrong to cash out with a win at video poker, I hope to be wrong many more times in the future.

You are raising silly arguments. Bell curves, now. LOL There is only one issue here: can you limit losses, and cash out with gains with a win goal, and improve your bottom line at video poker?

What is hilarious is that no one disagrees with this concept in live poker, in craps, or in any casino game that I know of. ONLY IN VIDEO POKER with the APs is it an issue. It is NOT an issue with Joe Public Gambler. ONLY with the APs. Hmmmm.

[Rob.Singer]

Alas, poor arci....alone and bewildered.

He says my strategy has been mathematically PROVEN (I think that's how he put it ) to be a loser. I wonder....where IS that proof? Could it be that he's saying he's followed me around and recorded negative results for almost a dozen years....or might he be once again using THEORY to counteract actuals? Hmmm....imagine the boredom of just sitting there waiting for who knows what to happen, and coming up with things everyone else laughs at!

Poor arci---and I mean that with all the deepest sincerity.

[arcimede$]

He says my strategy has been mathematically PROVEN (I think that's how he put it ) to be a loser. I wonder....where IS that proof?

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm

BTW, I never said it has been proven to be a loser (we all know it's just Singer who is the loser). What I've stated many times is it provides no advantage. In fact, I think I said that on Alan's forum a couple of times. All it does is exchange more session wins for fewer, but bigger losses. The overall results of players will still be a bell curve surrounding the expected return of the games played and the strategy used.

[arcimede$]

Okay, Arc, let's say there's a bell curve. (Really? First time I ever heard of a bell curve in video poker.) So, suppose you have the savvy to get out at the higher levels of the bell curve, and and not ride it all the way down? That's really what this whole strategy about "quitting when ahead" is all about. It's quitting when you're ahead on "your bell curve." (Really? A bell curve?)

You need to read up on what a bell curve is. You don't "ride" one. Try wiki.

Arc you keep throwing in math when math is not the issue. For the umpteenth time, no one disputes the math. Unless you are now saying that the math of video poker says you cannot stop playing... ever. Are you saying that, Arc? Are you saying it is wrong to bank your wins and your profits?

Maybe you should go back and read my responses to these same questions you've asked over and over. In fact, I think it was only a day ago when I stated there is nothing wrong with quitting. However, when you quit makes no difference if you are going to return and play in the future.

The issue here is having the sense, the good judgment, and making the decision to stop playing and go home... so you have some profits to play again another day.

I just got back from playing poker all night. I bought in to a $100-$300 game. I started with $300. When I had $950 I said to myself I would leave when I had either $1,000 or $900. Well, I lost about eight hands ($3 big blind), and fortunately I didn't lose much before I folded my cards... so I cashed out with $908... a $608 profit. Parking was $5 at The Bike, I tipped the valet a buck going in, and $1 going out.

That gives me a net profit of $601 to play poker with next time. (That was my net win, after I tipped for the food service which was free for the $100 and up games.)

Arc, are you saying that cashing out a win/profit of $608 is wrong at video poker? If you tell me it was wrong cashing out at live poker, I'd say: okay... and I hope to be wrong like that many, many more times in the future. And if it's wrong to cash out with a win at video poker, I hope to be wrong many more times in the future.

You are raising silly arguments. Bell curves, now. LOL There is only one issue here: can you limit losses, and cash out with gains with a win goal, and improve your bottom line at video poker?

What is hilarious is that no one disagrees with this concept in live poker, in craps, or in any casino game that I know of. ONLY IN VIDEO POKER with the APs is it an issue. It is NOT an issue with Joe Public Gambler. ONLY with the APs. Hmmmm.

Poker is not a random game in and off itself. While the cards dealt are random your winnings are also based on how others play. Hence, the expected return can be different at every table. If you are the best player at the table then you should probably have kept playing. On average you limit your winnings by quitting.

There is no way to improve your bottom line by deciding when to quit at any particular time over and above the base fact that quitting a negative game is always a good idea.

[arcimede$]

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.

Been done. Many math guys have pointed out that Singer is just spouting nonsense. See my proof above.

Not a single math person has ever supported the dufus.

[redietz]

So, in essence, what we'd get if we canvassed a large number of people with math doctorates is Rob and Alan on one side of the debate and the doctorates on the other?

Well, if that's the case, in terms of who's likely to be correct, I'd have to bet on the geeks. Unless Rob has invented a new calculus of some kind.

[arcimede$]

So, in essence, what we'd get if we canvassed a large number of people with math doctorates is Rob and Alan on one side of the debate and the doctorates on the other?

Well, if that's the case, in terms of who's likely to be correct, I'd have to bet on the geeks. Unless Rob has invented a new calculus of some kind.

What the dufus has done is as old as the hills. It's called a con. You sell a bunch of nonsense but add in just enough self-evident truths to pull in the suckers.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, this is the point of discussion here: "I stated there is nothing wrong with quitting. However, when you quit makes no difference if you are going to return and play in the future." Can we concentrate on this instead of whether or not Rob's special plays, progressive denominations, soft profits, changing games, work?

Just to keep on the subject: You claim to have a profit from playing video poker. So two questions for you:

1. How much more profit would you have if you were able to cash out at the peak of your profit in each session?
2. What percentage of sessions have you played when at some point in the session you were showing a profit?

And here's a bonus question, Arc: If you keep playing in the same session after a big win (I am going to define "big win" as having more than 120% of your starting bankroll for that session -- that's a 20% increase on your starting bankroll) why did you continue playing? What was the reason for continuing?

[Alan Mendelson]

So, in essence, what we'd get if we canvassed a large number of people with math doctorates is Rob and Alan on one side of the debate and the doctorates on the other?

Well, if that's the case, in terms of who's likely to be correct, I'd have to bet on the geeks. Unless Rob has invented a new calculus of some kind.

Redietz, specifically what are we asking the math experts to figure out? Because I think Rob has already answered in such a way that you would notlonger find fault with him.
Rob has made it clear that his strategy for which cards he holds, and how he plays hands, returns less than optimum payback. He admits it. He spells it out. But he is not trying for the "optimum payback." He is trying to BEAT the optimum payback/strategy. If he played the conventional strategy he would just have "conventional results." He doesn't want conventional results -- and he says his system gives him better than conventional results.

Now, you cannot judge Rob's system with a conventional strategy -- because it is not conventional. You can only judge Rob's system by watching Rob play and keeping track of his play. In other words, you can't find out the meaning of French words using an English dictionary. To find out the meaning of French words, you need a French dictionary and unless you speak French, the meaning in the dictionary will have to be translated into English.

Now, Rob says he won nearly a million dollars playing his "way." Unless you are saying he lied, there is no way that Rob's system can be analyzed using what we call conventional video poker strategy.

But what we can discuss is if quitting while ahead will help you win more money over time. I think it does. I think that when you couple your quit while ahead strategy along with tight loss limits, you will come out ahead over time.

[arcimede$]

1. How much more profit would you have if you were able to cash out at the peak of your profit in each session?

I would have done much better. So, when does a player know they are at that peak? Obviously, no one knows when they are at the peak of the day. In fact, many times my peak was right before I pressed deal the first time. In other words, if I were psychic I would never have even gone to the casino.

2. What percentage of sessions have you played when at some point in the session you were showing a profit?

Depends on what you consider a profit. If you mean I was up $1 then the number is quite high. Except, it would have been a real loss since it cost more than that to go to the casinos. And, as I indicated a couple of days ago. I had a profit quite early of about $200. If I had left I would never have seen the $2600 more than I won that day.

And here's a bonus question, Arc: If you keep playing in the same session after a big win (I am going to define "big win" as having more than 120% of your starting bankroll for that session -- that's a 20% increase on your starting bankroll) why did you continue playing? What was the reason for continuing?

An advantage player always has the advantage. It occurs on every hand. The reason I continue to play is I still have the advantage and, over time, will make more money by continuing to play.

Let's make this simpler. Let's say you get to call a coin toss. You bet $5 to make the call and you win $12 if you get it right. A very nice edge of 20%. You start playing and after 10 tosses you are ahead $10. Should you quit? Obviously, the answer is no. You should make about $1 on every toss. The more tosses the more you are going to make. What about when you are up $100 or $1000? Should you quit? Same logic applies.

The math is exactly the same with VP. The edge is normally much smaller but the idea is the same.

When playing a game like BP the difference is you win more like $9.99 on every flip. It's a negative game. You could get ahead but what would change by quitting one day and returning to play the same game another day? Absolutely nothing. Over time you are going to average a once cent loss for every toss. When you decide to quit makes no difference at all.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you wrote: "An advantage player always has the advantage. It occurs on every hand. The reason I continue to play is I still have the advantage and, over time, will make more money by continuing to play."

This is where you and I have the "great disconnect." You can have all the advantage in the world, but if you lose the hand, you lost. Advantage or no advantage. This is where your "theory" doesn't meet reality. I know plenty of gamblers who say to themselves -- I should have won. I had the advantage. But they lost.

You can't take theoretical advantage to the bank. Period.

And yes, no one knows when they are at the "peak" of their session. And sometimes you just have to say to yourself that you won "enough" and you don't want to risk giving it back. Arc, as an AP who is stuck on the math, you lack the human emotions to make that decision. Really. You think like a machine. And as I said before, it seems that only AP video poker players think like machines. Everyone else can look at their winnings and say "it's time to quit for the day, or the night, ot the trip." They do it in craps and live poker and in slots and in the carnival games... but you APers can't stop. You must have convinced yourselves that "the big one is coming."

It amazes me that "advantage video poker players" can't think with emotion. Maybe that's good, because maybe you are also immune to fear and greed. On the other hand your math and devotion to it could drive you into oblivion because you believe that during a cold run the math will even out and you will hit a winner.

[redietz]

I don't think Rob lied, and I think it's certainly possible he won the million dollars playing the way he did. But that doesn't make his methodology un-analyzable (not a word, but what the heck). A lottery player wins a million dollars -- it's undeniable. Should someone else follow that lottery player's strategy? Well, that question can, mathematically, be analyzed. Now maybe the lottery has a cold cycle, or a hot cycle, or something out of the ordinary -- in which case one would have to recognize it.

Alan, why don't you just get a simulator and copy the "get ahead, then quit" strategy a thousand times or so? We should all do that and report back here as to the results. That should answer the question.

[Vegas Vic]

An advantage player always has the advantage. It occurs on every hand. The reason I continue to play is I still have the advantage and, over time, will make more money by continuing to play.

Tell me where these VP machines are located. I'd like to play and play and play and play and make about a zilly dollars too.

[Rob.Singer]

What else does arci have if he doesn't create the belief to himself, while thinking he's impressing some with his silly advantage play talk, that he plays with a theoretical advantage--which can only means he WINS of course. Can anything happen outside the boundaries of his math books? BLASPHEMY!! Just like that nonsense theory he put up that no one bothered looking at claiming it's proof I haven't & couldnt't be successful with SPS, he would not know what to do with a clean set of actuals. Or without his ding-don't bell curve....

I believe if arci ever accepted something so basic such as how real his personal challenges are these days, rather than making believe it just isn't true because it's so far from his expectation of years ago, it'll take the ding--which he himself created and asked for/deserves btw--right out of his dong. Then regular people may be able to get through the massive amount of denial he protects himself with.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't think Rob lied, and I think it's certainly possible he won the million dollars playing the way he did. But that doesn't make his methodology un-analyzable (not a word, but what the heck). A lottery player wins a million dollars -- it's undeniable. Should someone else follow that lottery player's strategy? Well, that question can, mathematically, be analyzed. Now maybe the lottery has a cold cycle, or a hot cycle, or something out of the ordinary -- in which case one would have to recognize it.

Alan, why don't you just get a simulator and copy the "get ahead, then quit" strategy a thousand times or so? We should all do that and report back here as to the results. That should answer the question.

There is no reason to analye Rob's system, especially his "special plays" because if you use "conventional strategy" as your yardstick, Rob's system will fall short. So, don't even bother. Rob will tell you the same thing.

I don't need a simulator. I can tell you that over the past year I have been ahead at some point in my video poker play at least 95% of time (if not EVERY time, if only by 5 credits), but only on a small percentage of sessions have I finished with a net profit. Obviously, if I had cashed out showing even a small profit on each session, I would be a net, bottom line, winner. Because I kept playing -- I am not.

A lot of it is all my own fault. I was trying too damn hard to hit a royal. And it took me more than 140-thosuand hands to hit my last royal back in early January. I am no longer on "the royal chase" so now I am more willing to settle with a smaller, realistic win, each and every time I play.

[Count Room]

Hi Alan:

I have a question for you on quitting while ahead: Didn't you have a good thread some months ago where pressing the DEAL and DRAW buttons at the exact millisecond is what you need to find a good winning hand at VP? (ie. the continuous shuffling method used by modern machines)

If this is true then does it imply that we, as gamblers, are more proficient in pressing the button at the right millisecond early on in short casino trips rather than hanging around for hours and ending up losing? Do we gradually lose the ability to press the DEAL/DRAW buttons at the right moment the longer we stay in a casino?

[Alan Mendelson]

Hi Alan:

I have a question for you on quitting while ahead: Didn't you have a good thread some months ago where pressing the DEAL and DRAW buttons at the exact millisecond is what you need to find a good winning hand at VP? (ie. the continuous shuffling method used by modern machines)

If this is true then does it imply that we, as gamblers, are more proficient in pressing the button at the right millisecond early on in short casino trips rather than hanging around for hours and ending up losing? Do we gradually lose the ability to press the DEAL/DRAW buttons at the right moment the longer we stay in a casino?

Thank you for joining the Forum and for posting the question.

Yes, the modern VP machines have what is called "continuous shuffle" and that is meant to prevent any hacker or computer geek from working up some kind of formula for predicting which cards will come up next. However, it makes no difference when you push the button, because you have no idea where the cards are in the "continuous shuffle" process. All the continuous shuffle process does is insure that the shuffle is random. It does not effect your chances of drawing cards, the odds of the game, the paytables or anything else. It only keeps the game "honest."

Does it add to the worry about drawing that single card when you have a four to the royal draw? To me it does. Each time I get ready to press the draw button for that single card I visualize the computer shuffling that virtual deck. LOL It's enough to drive you crazy.

[Count Room]

Thanks for responding to my question so quickly, Alan. It's fun to read these forums.

You mentioned that it makes no difference when we push the button, because we have no idea where the cards are in the "continuous shuffle" process. I partially agree and disagree with this. To me, it actually makes all the difference in the world when to press the button...for that is what ultimately determines the final outcome. It's only the lack of knowing when to do it that stops us.

I agree with you on the 4-to-the-royal draws being the exciting and perhaps nerve-racking events that they are. I've been reasonably lucky with those.

On a related note, this is for Rob Singer: Hello. I wanted to ask: I once heard a rumor a while back that you undergo a special physical ritual of some sort when you are dealt three-of-a-kind before you draw for the quad. Is this rumor true? If so, is it used to press the DRAW button at a good time for the quad?

[Alan Mendelson]

Count Room wrote: "To me, it actually makes all the difference in the world when to press the button...for that is what ultimately determines the final outcome." Actually you are correct. The exact moment you press the deal or draw button will determine which card/cards you are given by the continuous shuffle. But since we can't possibly "time" when to push the button, or see what cards would be dealt, it makes no difference when we push it.

My wife has a ritual where if she is drawing one card she will press and depress the hold button for that position several times over. I have seen other players move their hands over the screen as if sending a message to the machine. I have closed my eyes and prayed. And as I have frequently said -- people pray in churches and synagogues and casinos -- but when they pray in casinos they really mean it.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could actually view the cards in the continuous shuffle device when it was a one-card draw for the royal so that when we had one card to draw the machine could offer a "skill element" to the game? To make this "skill element" realistic, the speed of the cards would have to be at some level where the cards could actually be viewed -- and not just a blur. I wonder if that kind of "skill option" would make the game more popular? And in case a game maker or game designer is reading this, it would only be for one card draws to the royal and a special picture-in-picture of the virtual shuffling would appear on the display screen.

And-- you saw the idea here. So if you want it, please cut me in on the deal. LOL

thanks, Alan

[Count Room]

So does this mean that people who lose a lot at VP don't have a "gambling problem"? Rather, it's just a "timing problem", strictly speaking? I must say, though, if everyone could solve their "timing problems" the casinos would be out of business LOL!