What about loss goals?

[arcimede$]

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.

No, I addressed it specifically. It's called a bell curve.

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.

Alan, I'm simply relating the facts to you. Your inability to understand them is the only problem.

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.

No, I am explaining reality. You want to live in a fantasy world.

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?

Alan, you are claiming that by taking money at that exact point in time you can do better than you will do if you keep playing. That's where the discussion of the next hand comes into play. Your next hand would either be played at that point in time or when you return to the casino. If the odds are exactly the same in both cases then quitting at that time can't possibly make a difference. You are just as likely to lose that win the next time you play as you are if you keep playing.

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.

I never claimed a negative game can not be beaten. I've claimed there is nothing you can do to change your own future results. If you get lucky and beat the game that is great, but your choices of when to stop playing had no control over it. You simply were luckier than most.

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?

Bell curves are not positive or negative. They simply are a plot of the results one can expect from playing a game. They graphically demonstrate the points I've been making.

I can see you are making no attempt to understand the facts. You would rather live in a fantasy world.

[arcimede$]

Maybe a little example will help you understand. Let's assume your lifetime VP hands are all predetermined by fate and you will see the exact same hands in the exact same order no matter what you do. Let's also assume the distribution of the various results is exactly what the probabilities determine. You will get a RF once every 40K hands on average, a quad once every 425 hands on average, etc.

I hope you can see that choosing a stopping point would have no impact on your overall results. The next hand you get is exactly the same no matter when you stop.

Before I go any further, do you agree with this view?

[slingshot]

Maybe a little example will help you understand. Let's assume your lifetime VP hands are all predetermined by fate and you will see the exact same hands in the exact same order no matter what you do. Let's also assume the distribution of the various results is exactly what the probabilities determine. You will get a RF once every 40K hands on average, a quad once every 425 hands on average, etc.

I hope you can see that choosing a stopping point would have no impact on your overall results. The next hand you get is exactly the same no matter when you stop.

Before I go any further, do you agree with this view?

Fine for your example. But in REAL LIFE at a REAL casino, thousands of hands-or maybe MILLIONS of hands have been played by others. The THING HERE is to win what others have played by their staying at the machines so long and filling them up.

[arcimede$]

Fine for your example. But in REAL LIFE at a REAL casino, thousands of hands-or maybe MILLIONS of hands have been played by others. The THING HERE is to win what others have played by their staying at the machines so long and filling them up.

That would be great if it was true. However, it is not true. The hands you get are determined precisely by when you hit the deal/draw buttons. What other people have done has no impact on what you get. This is due to randomness.

For what you say to be true the machines would have to be non-random.

[Count Room]

Alan:

You mentioned somewhere recently that you were up to the challenge by Arci to try quitting while ahead, etc. Why not hit your favorite local casinos using some derivative of Mr. Singer's system and showing your results to us? I don't mean free-play results...I mean an actual bankroll ready to go and discussing machine results only without the casino extras. You seem to have a lot of options available to create some strategies to report on in your local area (25-cents up to $5). You know Rob could coach you here along the way if needed; he might even come up with specialized RTT strategies for your local casinos to test out, etc. After all, this is YOUR forum...doesn't seem too enjoyable to just argue on things. Arci and Rob have been arguing over VP/math/how-to-win for many years and it will go on forever if unchecked.
As an aside, I actually found your story on having a hard time leaving that BP machine with the full house still on the screen an interesting story. You say it is greed that wanted to keep you there; I often wonder about hypnotizing color patterns on the machines to keep customers spending money , etc. Any descriptions of how easy or hard it is to leave with a win or loss goal when playing against the machines can be good, educational reading on how to be disciplined, etc.

I do some stock trading from time to time and when I close out a position at a profit I almost NEVER feel the urge to trade again right away to make more profit. In a casino, however, I feel the urge to keep playing much more often after a decent hit. I often wonder if the pulse-racing casino atmosphere contributes to this feeling of "play more!"

[slingshot]

That would be great if it was true. However, it is not true. The hands you get are determined precisely by when you hit the deal/draw buttons. What other people have done has no impact on what you get. This is due to randomness.

For what you say to be true the machines would have to be non-random.

BINGO! Good point!

[arcimede$]

BINGO! Good point!

So, back to my previous question. If you believe the machines are not random then why would you play? The only way it would make sense if you knew exactly how they worked. Are you claiming you know the method IGT machines use to cheat players?

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan:

You mentioned somewhere recently that you were up to the challenge by Arci to try quitting while ahead, etc. Why not hit your favorite local casinos using some derivative of Mr. Singer's system and showing your results to us? I don't mean free-play results...I mean an actual bankroll ready to go and discussing machine results only without the casino extras. You seem to have a lot of options available to create some strategies to report on in your local area (25-cents up to $5). You know Rob could coach you here along the way if needed; he might even come up with specialized RTT strategies for your local casinos to test out, etc. After all, this is YOUR forum...doesn't seem too enjoyable to just argue on things. Arci and Rob have been arguing over VP/math/how-to-win for many years and it will go on forever if unchecked.
As an aside, I actually found your story on having a hard time leaving that BP machine with the full house still on the screen an interesting story. You say it is greed that wanted to keep you there; I often wonder about hypnotizing color patterns on the machines to keep customers spending money , etc. Any descriptions of how easy or hard it is to leave with a win or loss goal when playing against the machines can be good, educational reading on how to be disciplined, etc.

I do some stock trading from time to time and when I close out a position at a profit I almost NEVER feel the urge to trade again right away to make more profit. In a casino, however, I feel the urge to keep playing much more often after a decent hit. I often wonder if the pulse-racing casino atmosphere contributes to this feeling of "play more!"

First of all, I do not play any derivative of Rob's system. I do not change denominations as Rob does in his systems, I do not make special plays, and I play for the most part only one game now which is 8/5 Aces and Faces or 8/5 Bonus. So if you are looking for someone to test Rob's system it ain't me.

The part about Rob's "system" that I like and which I am now following is his money management for cashing out win goals and going home. Earlier I asked Arc what proof he would need in the thread called "The Sisyphean Gambler":

Arc wrote in post #242

When are you going to back up this claim with real examples? You have no problem spewing this nonsense but when it comes to actually tracking your results you can't quite do it. Gee, I wonder why.

Tell us your win goals and loss limit and then try it in casinos. Get out of the rabbit hole and put your money where your mouth is.

And then I responded:

Arc, you're on!! What proof do you require?

I offered this as my strategy/test for the win goal:

"In the future: my bankroll per trip will be $2500, and I will cash out with a win of 10% or greater. I expect to be able to do that at least 90% of the time. We'll see."

Arc responded with: "I'm not looking for anything for myself. I simply want you to walk the walk. Define whatever you like and tell us your results. Just define your approach beforehand so we all know what you are doing."

And then this post:

One problem you will encounter is you will get tired before reaching your win/loss limits quite often. This will skew your results somewhat. However, if you could play through every time my simulator says your should win around 65% of your completed sessions playing BP.

You could avoid the problem of not reaching your limits by continuing a session that was not completed the next time you play. For example, if you are down $2000 or ahead $200 just start off your next session at that point.

At that point it appeared that Arc conceded that using a money management approach only you could leave a winner 65% of the time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you can't give a straight answer to anything. Your bell curve response illustrates the point perfectly.

Oh, by the way, what the heck are you talking about when you wrote this: "Bell curves are not positive or negative. They simply are a plot of the results one can expect from playing a game."

What results are you plotting Arc if not wins or losses? Are you plotting the appearance of Aces? Are you plotting the appearance of Jokers? You are obviously plotting wins and losses and if you're not plotting wins and losses then you are plotting how many times a cocktail waitress comes by your machine.

I'm not going to fall for your diversions and BS. You know damn well what the answer is and you won't admit it's true because your nemesis Rob Singer said it. And here it is:

If you cash out when you are positive you will beat a negative expectation game. Why can't you simply say "yes, that's true"? You can't, though. You have to pile on all the math about long term play and negative expectation games being negative in your attempt to discredit anything that is attached to Rob Singer. If Rob Singer said the sky was blue, you Arc, would come up with some scientific study about how the sky really isn't blue but we only see it as blue because of how the sensors in our eyes and brains work.

Arc, you further go on to repeatedly claim that playing a positive expectation game alone with make you a winner. No, it won't. Just as someone can win at a negative expectation game, someone can lose at a positive expectation game.

[Count Room]

OK Alan, fair enough. I brought up the idea of using Rob's system as a way to break up the monotony of the back-and-forth between Arci and Rob.

I will say from my corner that it's hard to imagine that it will make much difference whether you leave or not and come back later to press those magical machine buttons at the right millisecond. I don't ask this question condescendingly or facetiously...but does physical rest away from the casino physically refresh people to press the DEAL button at a better time when that person returns to the casino later (eg. somewhat akin to the "tag the building" issue)? To me this question goes to the crux of the matter as to whether it's one long session or many little sessions.

I just assume both Arc and Rob are winners to be safe. If 100%+ paytables were available I would play them exclusively, but since they are not in my area I use a variant of Rob's system for fun.

[Alan Mendelson]

The reason why I now employ the "win goal" method/system/practice is that over the years playing VP I have found that there are many, many times when I am showing a profit but keep playing and lost all the profit and then even more.

Many times I have a profit of 10 to 20% or more and keep playing so that I lose it. Yes, there have been a few times when my profits continued to mount. But being realistic, I've lost a lot more than I've ever won. Hence, my new strategy to be satisfied with modest gains.

So why cash out when I do cash out? Well, it's not because I think the machine is about to suddenly get "cold." It's because I've decided that to walk out with some profit is better than to continue playing and risk losing that profit. Too many times I have driven home saying to myself--- "hey schmucko why didn't you cash out when you were up four thousand dollars? Or when you were up five hundred? Or when you were up two hundred? Isn't going home with an extra two hundred better than going home with a five thousand dollar marker to pay off?"

I don't have to play for comps. I don't have to play for tier score. I don't have to play for any set period of time for "slot club benefits" the way that Arc says he plays, or the way Dancer plays. In fact, I've followed Dancer and Grochowski for years and never won. So if Rob's system/method/strategy of cashing out with a modest win turns me into a winner and improves my bottom line well then that's the system for me.

All the math theory and expected values can't be deposited into my checking account.

I went back the other night for a quick visit. Left with a "win" of $325. Sure, I could have played "one more hand" and cashed out either with an even amount of $300 or maybe hit another winner. But instead, I said to myself "take the extra $25." I did. What a great feeling that was.

To all of the math experts I have one thing to say to you: Math is great. But adding folding money in my wallet is better.

[redietz]

Good lord, "If you cash out when positive, you will beat a negative expectation game." This reminds me of a tidbit of wisdom from my first cross country coach, "Bob, you have to be ahead at the finish line to win."

Alan, I have noticed you have not addressed the questions that point out the absurdity of this "strategy." Do you really believe this would work with a -50% EV game? How about a -20% EV game? If the answer is yes, you may as well apply this to all gambling, including keno. If not, at what point in negative EV does the magical quit-while-ahead strategy begin to work?

It's easy to calculate what percent of the time someone who plays x number of hands will be ahead in a negative expectation game, and it's easy to calculate what percent of the time someone who plays x number of hands will be behind in a positive expectation game. This stuff isn't a secret, so yes, until you play a lot of hands, playing a negative game doesn't assure a loss and playing a positive game doesn't assure a win. This is not news.

Can you beat a negative game by continually cashing out when positive? The answer, of course, is sometimes. Playing the same number of hands, one can beat a negative game the same percent of the time by not cashing out when positive. There's no difference.

[Alan Mendelson]

I really don't think you meant the question as you wrote it:

"Alan, I have noticed you have not addressed the questions that point out the absurdity of this "strategy." Do you really believe this would work with a -50% EV game? How about a -20% EV game? If the answer is yes, you may as well apply this to all gambling, including keno. If not, at what point in negative EV does the magical quit-while-ahead strategy begin to work?"

In case you did, let me answer it like this: any positive win is positive. It doesn't matter if you have a 50-50 chance of winning or a one in a million chance of winning. If you won, you won.

Like Arc, you are confusing apples with oranges. We are not talking about odds or expectation or anything else. We (and I am including Rob and others who also understand) are simply saying if you put a win in your pocket and take it home it is your money.

Stop trying to confuse the issue with odds and expectations and everything else that you and Arc are throwing into this discussion. We aren't talking about odds. We are not talking about expectation. All we are talking about is that when you win TAKE THE MONEY AND GO HOME.

edited to add:

Now let me comment about the rest of what you wrote above:

I wouldnt play 6/5 Bonus or 7/5 Jacks. I am going to play the best pay tables available. Rob says he will play the best table available. But even with a negative pay table it is still possible to win. it might be harder, but it is still possible. Just as with a positive paytable you can lose.

When I used to stay at the Rio I played 10/7 Double Bonus. I had the worst luck and lost at it. But when I played Super Aces Bonus at the Rio, with a negative pay table, I got lucky and won. But this is a side issue.

For the most part, I am playing negative expectation games. Yet, there are many times when I am showing nice, healthy wins at the negative expectation games. And the entire point of the discussion is, as Rob has said, you can be profitable at a negative expectation game if you take your profits.

[arcimede$]

At that point it appeared that Arc conceded that using a money management approach only you could leave a winner 65% of the time.

Actually, you could leave a winner even more often if you lowered your win goal. The win percentage is only part of the story.

Now, look at the numbers. If you win $250 10 times and lose $2500 once you are just even. You've won 10 out of 11 session and still aren't ahead. Thinking that winning more often will achieve an overall profit is clearly not a given.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you can't give a straight answer to anything. Your bell curve response illustrates the point perfectly.

Oh, by the way, what the heck are you talking about when you wrote this: "Bell curves are not positive or negative. They simply are a plot of the results one can expect from playing a game."

What results are you plotting Arc if not wins or losses? Are you plotting the appearance of Aces? Are you plotting the appearance of Jokers? You are obviously plotting wins and losses and if you're not plotting wins and losses then you are plotting how many times a cocktail waitress comes by your machine.

The bell curve itself is simply a plot of results. It is the results that are positive or negative.

I'm not going to fall for your diversions and BS. You know damn well what the answer is and you won't admit it's true because your nemesis Rob Singer said it. And here it is:

If you cash out when you are positive you will beat a negative expectation game. Why can't you simply say "yes, that's true"?

Because it's not true. You may have beat it for a single session, but you haven't beaten the game. You've just experienced the bell curve.

You can't, though. You have to pile on all the math about long term play and negative expectation games being negative in your attempt to discredit anything that is attached to Rob Singer. If Rob Singer said the sky was blue, you Arc, would come up with some scientific study about how the sky really isn't blue but we only see it as blue because of how the sensors in our eyes and brains work.

Arc, you further go on to repeatedly claim that playing a positive expectation game alone with make you a winner. No, it won't. Just as someone can win at a negative expectation game, someone can lose at a positive expectation game.

Alan, I can only laugh at your nonsense. What you are attributing to me has nothing to do with me. It is the opinion of every single mathematician and knowledgeable player. I'm simply trying to explain to you what others determined decades ago. There's really only one person who supports your claim ... the dufus. EVERYONE ELSE supports the standard math.

Now why do you every single mathematician and professional believe what I've been saying while only the dufus thinks otherwise? Are they all in on some massive conspiracy? Are they all trying to fool the public? Think about it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, you could leave a winner even more often if you lowered your win goal. The win percentage is only part of the story.

Now, look at the numbers. If you win $250 10 times and lose $2500 once you are just even. You've won 10 out of 11 session and still aren't ahead. Thinking that winning more often will achieve an overall profit is clearly not a given.

Hold it... I only started playing using this "system" recently. I haven't played 11 sessions yet. In fact, I've only played 4 sessions. In each of the 4 sessions I left video poker with a net gain. Unfortunately in two of the four trips, I lost playing craps.

In all four video poker sessions the wins have been modest to moderate. No royals. In the first of four sessions, because I was hitting quads at the $5 level I raised my stop loss (trailing win). I did not cash out at the peak profit, but did have at one time a gain of nearly $4500. I finished with a net gain at video poker of around $3200. But then...

damn craps.

But if you are keeping score... I am four for four leaving video poker with a net win. Smallest net win was $325.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, there is only one law of math here when it comes to discussing "quitting when ahead." And here it is:

When you quit when you're ahead, you quit with a profit. That's it. That's all. There is nothing else here. Do you accept that? Yes or no?

All of your other talk about how you can't win at a negative expectation game has no relevancy. Just as you cannot say "when you play a positive expectation game you will always win."

[arcimede$]

Arc, there is only one law of math here when it comes to discussing "quitting when ahead." And here it is:

When you quit when you're ahead, you quit with a profit. That's it. That's all. There is nothing else here. Do you accept that? Yes or no?

All of your other talk about how you can't win at a negative expectation game has no relevancy. Just as you cannot say "when you play a positive expectation game you will always win."

Alan, you keep trying to imply that winning a single session is meaningful. That is your problem. Anyone can win a session with any strategy you can think of. No one denies that it is possible to win a single session. You keep running back to that because you don't want to deal with the big picture.

What I've been trying to tell you is that that ALL of your sessions will determine your overall profitability. When you look at the big picture you see that your overall results will approach the ER of the game over time. In that time you may experience many session wins. You can increase the win percentage by setting low win goals. However, the losses will end up eating up all the wins (and more on negative games) for the vast majority of players.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, you keep trying to imply that winning a single session is meaningful. That is your problem. Anyone can win a session with any strategy you can think of. No one denies that it is possible to win a single session. You keep running back to that because you don't want to deal with the big picture.

What I've been trying to tell you is that that ALL of your sessions will determine your overall profitability. When you look at the big picture you see that your overall results will approach the ER of the game over time. In that time you may experience many session wins. You can increase the win percentage by setting low win goals. However, the losses will end up eating up all the wins (and more on negative games) for the vast majority of players.

I am glad you wrote this because this is the essence of our disagreement.

I don't look at the "big picture." I look at each session. If I can leave the casino each time with a win, even a small win, I will be a happy camper.

I used to look at it "the long way" and kept pounding the keys for those royals. So many of you APs including Frank told me the royals will come and my drought of 170-thousand hands was normal. But it was an expensive drought. I would have been better off during that entire time just taking the smaller wins and going home.

And Arc, I don't want "the ER of the game over time." I want better. And leaving with a net win, even a small win, over more sessions will allow me to beat the ER.

Swallow hard now Arc: you can beat the math by playing smarter.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I added a variable to my program that keeps track of the maximum wins in a row. I ran the program for 10,000 sessions playing BP with win/loss goals of 250/2500 ... and the maximum wins in a row came out to 31. However, the overall return was still right at 99.1%.

So, the good news is you could win a lot more of your sessions before that first loss. The bad news is it won't make much difference in your overall results over time.