What about loss goals?

[slingshot]

Sling, during the past four weeks I've been testing stopping by Terribles here in Pahrump whenever I had to go out for whatever errands, putting in $200 in their 6-level 5c thru $2 machines with a win goal of twenty bucks or lose the $200. To date, I've played 32 sessions, I've won 30, lost 2, and am ahead $430. My largest win has come via quad 3's on $2 Aces Bonus poker.

As you can see, arci's assertion that win goals are meaningless and how the inevitable & infrequent big losses will more than wipe out all those small winners, is just another of his denial driven by a lack of gaming knowledge.

We're leaving for the summer next Thursday, noting that retirement couples who did not put habitual gambling ahead of healthy living in earlier years will reap the rewards of that respect. But I will continue to track these visits both before and after our departure. We expect to return in early Sept.

Just curious. Was there an opportunity to use a play that deviated from normal strategy or was it just the usual hands? All my small pairs in a two pair scenario got me back to my mini-win goal, so never had an opportunity. Thanks, and congrats. It's interesting stuff.

[Alan Mendelson]

I play just enough to reach the highest tier level which increases my cashback. Third, I play a consistent time to maximize the freeplay I receive

I thought that the #1 rule for players was NOT to "play for comps"? I think that is one of the first "lessons" I ever learned. Now, I've been reading how Arc has effectively played for comps and even Dancer in his columns talks about playing a certain amount of time at various casinos to maintain certain comps and free play and promo levels.

Has the "rule" changed about "playing for comps"? If so, what is the new "formula" that would justify "playing for comps"?

I know this-- the value of comps has been dropping dramatically in recent years. The Caesars/Harrahs properties in Nevada don't really have "comps" anymore. Instead your "rewards" are based on actual play. Since the "rewards" are only a fraction of actual coin-through, and there is no increased tier for "rewards" there is no reason to gamble more. Also, casino promotions are stingier now than they were five years ago-- again a reason not to play more.

Generally, comps are not worth more than one-tenth of one percent -- ever. And if the game you are playing has a 45% chance of breaking even or perhaps winning with each "play" than the comp value of each play drops to one-twentieth of one percent.

So, if I have this correct, if I put $5,000 through a video poker machine, that one-twentieth of one percent is worth two dollars and fifty cents. Do I have that correct? Geesh, if I'm playing a $5 video poker machine, and if I am "off" by one play of $25 I've wiped out the comps of $50,000 of play.

Doesn't seem like a profitable transaction for me, the player.

Edited to add: Actually it gets even more complicated for video poker players, since their comp rate for coin through is HALF the rate for slot players. I'm not even going to approach "table players" because "play measured" at tables depends on what the floor person reports -- and that report can be waaaay off.

But it seems to me that playing for comps has little effective value with risk of loss far outweighing the return.

[Rob.Singer]

Sling, when I play just BP like this the special plays happen, but at a lower rate and the have less value for the most part.

Alan, Dancer also puts slot club status and potential mailings for top players ahead of actual results, so he can create scenario after scenario about how he was playing for X amount per hour to make it appear he was making an hourly wage at the machines when he actually usually loses and claims the safety of phantom bucks. Oldest trick in the book....if you're trying to dupe other players into buying your wares or services. Trouble is, the fact that he still has to work multiple jobs for his income so he can continue playing the machines, makes his whole scheme transparent. And don't you think he'd be banned from playing ANYWHERE by now--especially at those places he says he's won those ten cars from--if he were having even half the success he portrays himself as having?

This is pie-in-the-sky stuff for any quality thinker to deduce.

[arcimede$]

I believe the programmed randomness is more noticeable pattern-wise.

What do you have to compare it against? I doubt you have any true random experiences. There aren't many around. If that's so you are just guessing. True randomness has patterns just like pseudo-randomness.

[arcimede$]

Sling, during the past four weeks I've been testing stopping by Terribles here in Pahrump whenever I had to go out for whatever errands, putting in $200 in their 6-level 5c thru $2 machines with a win goal of twenty bucks or lose the $200. To date, I've played 32 sessions, I've won 30, lost 2, and am ahead $430. My largest win has come via quad 3's on $2 Aces Bonus poker.

Statistically meaningless. A 6-level progression should lead to a very high session win rate so the 30 wins is likely within the normal range. The game is also a decent paytable so you would expect to be close to even at those low denoms.

Now, playing $10/hand with less than a $200 bankroll could mean you are not playing many hands at that level. Probably no more than 5-10. Even at 10 hands a session you've only played 320 hands at that level. Hitting a quad, especially a bonus quad, is nothing but good fortune and that represent almost all of your winnings.

Using a small sample like this is like going outside when it's raining and claiming it is going to rain forever.

[Rob.Singer]

That's the non-math, pessimistic point of view, and who would expect anything else given the conflicting circumstances you've cornered yourself with.

That quad is the only one so far at any level, and there have been at least a thousand hands played in at least two hours overall. So what happened to your claim that many smaller wins will occur, yet when that devastatingly big loss comes around, it'll "wipe out all those smaller winners and more?" Large winners are not to be ignored as if the don't exist, and you can see if a royal at 25c & above hits, there's no way I can ever lose--regardless of the 7/5 paytables the game has. It also has 6/5 on nickels and dimes and is regular BP at those two levels.

Just as I've experienced for nearly 12 years prior, it is always the same. Many "small" goal-attaining wins, some large losses, and even more/even larger, large winners.

I've posted this and another trial I've been doing the past few months here, and along with my over 400 sessions of professional play thru the years, because each session is its own individual event with results that are controlled by human choice, there is basically no way to lose over time doing it this way. IE, playing a negative expectation game is irrelevant compared to human controlled operation--which is superior in every way to relying on theory and simple math.

[arcimede$]

I thought that the #1 rule for players was NOT to "play for comps"? I think that is one of the first "lessons" I ever learned. Now, I've been reading how Arc has effectively played for comps and even Dancer in his columns talks about playing a certain amount of time at various casinos to maintain certain comps and free play and promo levels.

Alan, when people refer to "comps" they are referring to non-cash stuff like rooms, food, gifts, etc. Cashback is no different than money you win at the machine. Freeplay is also directly convertible to cash. Hence, those are considered part of the overall winnings.

So, if I have this correct, if I put $5,000 through a video poker machine, that one-twentieth of one percent is worth two dollars and fifty cents. Do I have that correct? Geesh, if I'm playing a $5 video poker machine, and if I am "off" by one play of $25 I've wiped out the comps of $50,000 of play.

Doesn't seem like a profitable transaction for me, the player.

If the Cashback is only .05% then that is all you would add to the game return. For example, playing 9/6 JOB it would increase the return to 99.59%. Still a negative game.

But, what if cashback is better. Southpoint cashback is .3%. At times they have 3x points which ups that to .9%. Now, JOB returns 100.44%. Hey, now it's a positive game.

All cashback is not the same. That is why I mentioned I tried to optimize my cashback.

[arcimede$]

I've posted this and another trial I've been doing the past few months here, and along with my over 400 sessions of professional play thru the years, because each session is its own individual event with results that are controlled by human choice, there is basically no way to lose over time doing it this way. IE, playing a negative expectation game is irrelevant compared to human controlled operation--which is superior in every way to relying on theory and simple math.

Utter nonsense. Even if one were to make a big assumption that you are being honest all it says is you ended up on the right side of the bell curve. The reality is ... no betting system changes the return of a game. This is not theory. It is a proven fact.

[Rob.Singer]

A "proven fact"? Then let's see you PROVE it without quoting those theories you live by!

I have never had anything to do with the "bell curve" you think is so important. I do, however, have everything to do with reality, and understanding that human selection can and does overcome mathematical theories and expectations given the proper intelligence level. And just to prove a point, you're the balls-on, gotta be math guy, and I'm the realistic one who knows much better. You live your life strictly according to the math, while I have long known human ingenuity can always render the math into a distant second finish. So when you look at long term results, who is reaping the just rewards of living a good and understand life on the reality side of that curve you're so enthralled with....and who is being punished for allowing a math-induced bad habit leading to long & unhealthy casino visits?

So goes love....or lack thereof.

[Alan Mendelson]

Now hold on a second, Rob. Let's stick to the issues here and not confuse them with your petty disputes.

All along I have understood you to say that you do not dispute the math of the game. But you also understand that no player can expect what the theoretical math says will happen. So because you are not at the machine to benefit from the long term math you take the wins when they come, and you limit your losses when they come -- so as to maximize your return.

Is that not what you are saying? Sometimes these little "side feuds" cloud the issue.

Arc is committed to believing that all players live by the long term math, no matter where in the "math cycle" they might be at the machine. Rob -- I think you and I and lots of other people know that when we sit at the machine we will not get our fair distribution of wins and losses. Sometimes we will just see the losses, and sometimes we will see wins. We should take the wins. Yes?

[arcimede$]

I'm referring to the mathematical proof I linked to earlier. There's no theory involved. A betting system cannot change the return of a random game. Proven fact. No ifs ands or buts. Only a complete dufus would claim he can overcome a mathematically proven fact.

Alan is referring to a separate issue where our actual returns fall into a probability curve that has the shape of a bell. Most results are close to the middle but possibilities exist that one can do better or worse that expected. Alan fantasizes that by cashing out at certain times he can push his results to the right side of that bell curve. However, a simple understanding of the game demonstrates that is not possible. Since any point a player quits is no different from the first hand of the next session, it cannot possibly change the actual return over time.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan you are correct. Arci, you keep proving that not only are you confused by the math you so closely live by....you have no clue as to the capabilities of human ingenuity once there's adequate motivation.

No amount of math can overcome or dictate an individual session result, and neither can it explain it within its own parameters. And since all hands as well as sessions are separate individual events unrelated to anything that has come before or has yet to come, using math books and theory to describe what should happen is totally irrelevant. As we have already seen, a strict math regimen has already blown up in arci's face, and since he is completely unable to prove his claims of winning and how playing nothing but -EV games creates a sure loser, he's simply using math as a crutch in the face of loss.

[arcimede$]

Alan you are correct. Arci, you keep proving that not only are you confused by the math you so closely live by....you have no clue as to the capabilities of human ingenuity once there's adequate motivation.

Only a complete dufus would claim human ingenuity can overcome a proven mathematical fact. Ingenuity comes into play by utilizing facts in new and unique ways, not by denying there existence. Once again we see the dufus is intellectually barren.

No amount of math can overcome or dictate an individual session result, and neither can it explain it within its own parameters. And since all hands as well as sessions are separate individual events unrelated to anything that has come before or has yet to come, using math books and theory to describe what should happen is totally irrelevant.

Silly strawman. The math PROVES that no betting system can change the return of a standard VP game. No one is trying to tell anyone that any individual session will be a winner or a loser. The fact you would try to change the subject in this manner demonstrates you are completely clueless. But, we all know that won't stop you from asserting yet more nonsense. It's all you've got.

As we have already seen, a strict math regimen has already blown up in arci's face, and since he is completely unable to prove his claims of winning and how playing nothing but -EV games creates a sure loser, he's simply using math as a crutch in the face of loss.

Yup, you are ever so predictable. When you're claims are easily proven false you try to change the subject. What a dufus.

[slingshot]

With all due respect, I don't think Rob claims to change ANYTHING by the betting system. His $30,000 loss proves that. It's what he does with it when it happens. And by progressions at key times, changing machines when necessary, and special deviations from the normal hands that would reach a win goal, and by cashing out when these win goals are met-the opportunites to be at the right place at the right time increase at the hopefully highest level of play when good fortune does come. And those "itty bitty" wins or cashouts can sometimes really mount up.

[arcimede$]

With all due respect, I don't think Rob claims to change ANYTHING by the betting system. His $30,000 loss proves that. It's what he does with it when it happens. And by progressions at key times, changing machines when necessary, and special deviations from the normal hands that would reach a win goal, and by cashing out when these win goals are met-the opportunites to be at the right place at the right time increase at the hopefully highest level of play when good fortune does come. And those "itty bitty" wins or cashouts can sometimes really mount up.

No, the dufus claims he's a winner because of his betting system while playing negative return games. Hence, he IS claiming he can change the return of a game, which has been proven mathematically to be impossible.

It's very simple, you can't add up a bunch of negative numbers and get a positive answer. That's simple arithmetic.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you are looking at the window when someone is telling you to look at the door. You don't understand the analogy, I know. Because you can't understand what others are telling you about taking profits vs what the math says the return is on games.

The issue is apples and oranges, windows and doors, horses and tigers, and you just don't get it.

I give up trying to make you understand... because you have your feet firmly planted in quicksand.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you are looking at the window when someone is telling you to look at the door. You don't understand the analogy, I know. Because you can't understand what others are telling you about taking profits vs what the math says the return is on games.

The issue is apples and oranges, windows and doors, horses and tigers, and you just don't get it.

I give up trying to make you understand... because you have your feet firmly planted in quicksand.

Hilarious. You are completely clueless and you try to assert I am the one who is lost. I've understood everything you've said. The problem is your claims are simply wrong. I've shown you why they are wrong. Frank showed you why they were wrong. redeitz has tried to get you to understand.

Yet, here you are once again trying to claim that stopping your play at some point in time will make a difference in your overall return. It won't, Alan. You can continue to believe this nonsense all you want but it won't change reality.

[Alan Mendelson]

you are once again trying to claim that stopping your play at some point in time will make a difference in your overall return. It won't, Alan. You can continue to believe this nonsense all you want but it won't change reality.

What is hilarious Arc, is your assertion that you can't make a difference in the "expected return." Of course you can have a different return than the expected return. I can guarantee you right now that any time I go into a casino and play 8/5 Bonus poker that my actual return will differ from the expected return of the game. And so the choice becomes---

a. do I want to cash out when I have a profit and beat the expected return of the game?
b. do I want to keep playing until I've lost more than the expected return of the game?
c. or do I want to keep playing and hope that I will match the expected return of the game?

Why wouldn't a player want to choose A whether A represents a small win or a big win? And why do you say it is impossible for a player to have more winning sessions that will allow him to beat the expected return?

redietz raised the question of supernatural powers. Arc, do you have supernatural powers so that you can tell me and tell other players that it is impossible for us to beat the expected return?

You should talk to my former neighbor in Valencia... the guy who won the California lottery TWICE. Ask him about beating negative expectation games.

[arcimede$]

What is hilarious Arc, is your assertion that you can't make a difference in the "expected return." Of course you can have a different return than the expected return. I can guarantee you right now that any time I go into a casino and play 8/5 Bonus poker that my actual return will differ from the expected return of the game. And so the choice becomes---

Silly attempt to change the meaning of my words. I've told you several times already that the actual return will form a bell curve centered around the expected return. No one claims the return of any particular session will be exactly the game's ER. Good grief.

a. do I want to cash out when I have a profit and beat the expected return of the game?
b. do I want to keep playing until I've lost more than the expected return of the game?
c. or do I want to keep playing and hope that I will match the expected return of the game?

Why wouldn't a player want to choose A whether A represents a small win or a big win? And why do you say it is impossible for a player to have more winning sessions that will allow him to beat the expected return?

Once again, Alan. This is so simple a cave man or child should be able to understand it. Read slowly. There is no difference in the expected future results after any particular hand. Every hand is independent.

Notice how you stated in b. that keeping playing would result in losing a profit. But, since there's no difference between that point in time and the the next time you play, the odds are exactly the same that you would lose that profit the next time you decide to play. The odds are also exactly the same that you will win from that point in time as it is the next time you play.

redietz raised the question of supernatural powers. Arc, do you have supernatural powers so that you can tell me and tell other players that it is impossible for us to beat the expected return?

You should talk to my former neighbor in Valencia... the guy who won the California lottery TWICE. Ask him about beating negative expectation games.

Another silly strawman, Alan. No one has said it is impossible. The bell curve always contains a few potential winners for almost any game. However, what I've told you is there is no way for an individual to control their return. If you are unlucky and end up on the wrong end of the bell curve you will lose and it doesn't matter when you quit your various sessions ... unless, of course, you have supernatural powers.

You see, you could be an individual that rarely gets lucky but when you do, you get very lucky. That would mean quitting early on one of your lucky days would limit those wins. On your unlucky days you would still lose big. Hence, a strategy of quitting while ahead would result in more losses for you overall.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you did a good job of talking your way around what I said. But you never responded to my point which is that every individual can have actual results which can differ from the expected return of the game. It doesn't matter if it is after one hand, or ten hands or a million hands. And this is why you can beat a "negative return" game. You keep talking about odds of hands, and that is not an issue. You create issues that have nothing to do with the discussion about how leaving with a profit can help your bottom line.

For example, your latest contribution is this:

There is no difference in the expected future results after any particular hand. Every hand is independent.

Well, Arc, you're right. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China OR if taking profits will help your bottom line over time? It has NOTHING to do with it. You keep raising silly issues and make comments about math that has nothing to do with our subject here.

How about this statement of yours:

Notice how you stated in b. that keeping playing would result in losing a profit. But, since there's no difference between that point in time and the the next time you play, the odds are exactly the same that you would lose that profit the next time you decide to play. The odds are also exactly the same that you will win from that point in time as it is the next time you play.

Well, you did it again Arc. You talk about odds on the next hand. Well, Arc, no one is talking about odds on the next play. All we are talking about is the money showing on the meter, and the money you can take home with you. Why do you keep mixing up the issue here? As I said earlier, we're talking apples and you're talking oranges. We say look through the window and you're looking through the door. Are we communicating yet?

And then you throw in your bell curve. Wow, bell curves.

And yes, Arc, if there is a bell curve it means that someone is doing better than the expected return and someone is doing worse than the expected return. So the bell curve defeats your claim that you can't beat a negative expectation game. Unless of course your new claim is that the entire bell curve is a negative return bell curve. Is that what you're claiming now?