Page 1 of 21 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 403

Thread: Short term vs long term and quitting while ahead (continued)

  1. #1
    So in discussion with these guys like Alan and Singer, that claim you can beat -EV short-term (which you can) and then just duplicate that over and over, the example I always use is roulette and how a player can play black and win 3 of 4 spins and quit for the day, but could not do that over and over for 100 days.

    So last night I was out at a bar with friends watching the NBA playoffs, when I thought of another great example. The Dallas Mavericks started the game doubling up the Utah Jazz. Scores were 8-4, and 16-8 in the early going. You see this frequently. Occasionally it will last for a whole first quarter with one team on top say 32-16. These are all short term examples. But how often do you see a professional basketball team double up the score on another (even a really bad team) for the entire game? How often do you see a game that ended 120-60? That is a perfect example of short-term vs long-term.

    I suppose it has happened, but not very often. The point being with a small sample size or small trial, these results occur. But when you get to a larger sample size, larger trial set, they do not. And that is exactly the way it is with -EV gambling. You can defy the math short-term, small sample size, but when you get to the long run, you can no longer defy the math. The math takes over. This is actually known as the "law of large numbers". Kind of a silly name....I know.

    And btw, this also occurs with +EV. It is why those of us that play with an advantage have losing periods. But you get to the long term and the math takes over.

  2. #2
    You're using selective reasoning, as usual, when it comes to basically anything really. (The basketball game is a very poor example by the way.)

    I'm not sure what Alan does, but my approach is unlike any other. Sure anyone can win (or lose) in a short term scenario. Similarly, anyone can win in a long-term scenario. Just as you'd "suspect" an AP to be a long-term winner, not all are. Why is that? Because (and I'll use VP for simplicity) the expected cards just did not continue to come out at the mathematically expected (not guaranteed) rate. The LoLN's does not predict at 100% accuracy. Another reason may be that the person playing, even though they've played millions of hands, simply has not yet played enuf for his or her results to meet expectation yet.

    In my case, where the vast majority of my play has always been on very slightly negative EV games (I've never used cash back/comps/slot club fluff in any of my play scenarios) my rational is a bit different while still retaining some of the aspects shown on the AP above.

    During CY's 2000/2001/2002/2003 I played my SPS exclusively, and I won around $375k. I don't remember how many weekly sessions I played, but I'll use 150 total just to keep it simple. Since my progressive AND regressive strategy had an 80%-85% chance of obtaining my minimum $2500 win goal--which was a mere 5% of my session bankroll--I ended the majority of my sessions winning, with the largest being $95k or so. There were some losing sessions of course, with the largest being about $33k. Never did I wave goodbye to my $57,200 session bankroll (which was 1/3 my total gambling-specific bankroll).

    So was this playing in the long-term or short-term? I have no idea, but if I was "expected to have a slight loss" after the 4 years then I simply did not perform to expectation. However, I expected to win overall, because I used a strategy that squeezes every single advantage out of the various aspects of my play. It is a strategy that depends on luck to have worthwhile wins, and it ultimately depends on the ability of the player to quit the session as soon as either the win goal is reached, or all 6 denominational levels have been played thru. THIS is the part that 99.9% of players with money remaining in their pocket cannot do.

    The simple way of looking at this to those who ignorantly always want to think that +EV means you win and -EV means you lose, is each session having an 80-something% of winning. Win 8 of 10 and the critic says "but gee Rob, you won $20,000 in those 8 wins, but you lost $40,000 or more in the 2 losing sessions".

    This is typical twisted critic-logic with a side of stupidity. They use the minimum win goal of $2500 for each of the 8 winning sessions, while they claim the 2 losses were devastating losses. Complete BS of course, as the huge winners far outnumbered the larger losers. Why? BECAUSE THE STRATEGY TAKES MAXIMUM ADVANTAGE OF LUCK, BY GIVING IT THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR WHILE SOMETIMES SHUNNING INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE WINNERS TO GET THERE.

    Redietz' "University Math Professors" might scoff at some of this stuff and ask if these results could be duplicated by anyone I trained. The answer to that is "most likely, no, because I have yet to meet anyone as capable as I am in life as well as in video poker, which is precisely what it would take to duplicate my results". I'm not saying there isn't anyone who qualifies, but if these people exist I really wouldn't expect to find them hovering around a game enjoyed by white trash like Tonya Harding.

    These Professors would, in fact, agree that winning over time on slightly -EV games is entirely possible, albeit somewhat rare.

    These past dozen or so years I am also quite a bit ahead, by playing recreationally (no particular strategy) and infrequently, by playing maybe 10% Hi-limit games that have hit big winners, and by staying away from greed by continuing to mostly play low limit afterwards. Addicts typically jump up in denomination after an unexpected big hit. Winners go down.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    These past dozen or so years I am also quite a bit ahead, by playing recreationally (no particular strategy) and infrequently, by playing maybe 10% Hi-limit games that have hit big winners, and by staying away from greed by continuing to mostly play low limit afterwards. Addicts typically jump up in denomination after an unexpected big hit. Winners go down.
    We should create an archive for these tips of wisdom.........lmao

    RIP
    MaxPen

    The only poster that shows up.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    We should create an archive for these tips of wisdom.........lmao

    RIP
    As If this Thread has any useful information in it anyway?
    Fucking Rat queerJ just posting his same old BullShit.
    Can't wait for the next Faked Internet Death Post.
    Or the, I'm gay, I'm Straight, I'm Gay Spiderman BullShit.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    So in discussion with these guys like Alan and Singer, that claim you can beat -EV short-term (which you can) and then just duplicate that over and over, the example I always use is roulette and how a player can play black and win 3 of 4 spins and quit for the day, but could not do that over and over for 100 days.
    Gosh Kewlj. Tell me how this can be accomplished in the short term but can't be repeated for the not so short term or the medium term or the long term?
    It's all about quitting -- or pausing -- when ahead. Lock up the profit.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post

    Gosh Kewlj. Tell me how this can be accomplished in the short term but can't be repeated for the not so short term or the medium term or the long term?
    Does anyone still not understand now how people lose their whole life's accomplishments to the casino?......RIP
    MaxPen

    The only poster that shows up.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post

    Gosh Kewlj. Tell me how this can be accomplished in the short term but can't be repeated for the not so short term or the medium term or the long term?
    Does anyone still not understand now how people lose their whole life's accomplishments to the casino?......RIP
    It is a clownworld?
    I wander through the path of life. Wondering. Wondering what my next signature on VCT should be.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post

    Gosh Kewlj. Tell me how this can be accomplished in the short term but can't be repeated for the not so short term or the medium term or the long term?
    Does anyone still not understand now how people lose their whole life's accomplishments to the casino?......RIP
    I'm sure there are people who have... especially those who play and think they have an edge over the casino. They have no need to quit.

    Recreational players know when to quit. They don't play thinking that they've got an edge.

    Recreational players are there for... what's the term? Oh, recreation. That's it. Recreation.
    It's all about quitting -- or pausing -- when ahead. Lock up the profit.

  9. #9
    My analogy: a civilian gets into the ring with Mike Tyson for 10 seconds, then "quits." Walks out unscathed after the 10 seconds. Decides he's "won." Gets back into the ring for another 10 seconds -- still able to "quit" and walk away. Becomes convinced he can beat Mike Tyson over 12 rounds by stringing together enough 10 second increments.

    Always best to fight Mike Tyson for 10 seconds or play Michael Jordan one-on-one in a game to one basket. Eventually things go sideways, but until then, you think you're king of the world.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post

    Gosh Kewlj. Tell me how this can be accomplished in the short term but can't be repeated for the not so short term or the medium term or the long term?
    Does anyone still not understand now how people lose their whole life's accomplishments to the casino?......RIP
    I'm sure there are people who have... especially those who play and think they have an edge over the casino. They have no need to quit.

    Recreational players know when to quit. They don't play thinking that they've got an edge.

    Recreational players are there for... what's the term? Oh, recreation. That's it. Recreation.
    Big difference between a recreational player and an addict.

    Of course you don't now anyone that basically lost their life gambling.....
    MaxPen

    The only poster that shows up.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post

    Gosh Kewlj. Tell me how this can be accomplished in the short term but can't be repeated for the not so short term or the medium term or the long term?
    Does anyone still not understand now how people lose their whole life's accomplishments to the casino?......RIP
    I'm sure there are people who have... especially those who play and think they have an edge over the casino. They have no need to quit.

    Recreational players know when to quit. They don't play thinking that they've got an edge.

    Recreational players are there for... what's the term? Oh, recreation. That's it. Recreation.
    So Alan how much would you say your casino recreation has cost you over the years?

    I don't mean in terms of failed relationships and the disdain of your peers and children, just financially.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    You're using selective reasoning, as usual, when it comes to basically anything really. (The basketball game is a very poor example by the way.)

    I'm not sure what Alan does, but my approach is unlike any other. Sure anyone can win (or lose) in a short term scenario. Similarly, anyone can win in a long-term scenario. Just as you'd "suspect" an AP to be a long-term winner, not all are. Why is that? Because (and I'll use VP for simplicity) the expected cards just did not continue to come out at the mathematically expected (not guaranteed) rate. The LoLN's does not predict at 100% accuracy. Another reason may be that the person playing, even though they've played millions of hands, simply has not yet played enuf for his or her results to meet expectation yet.

    In my case, where the vast majority of my play has always been on very slightly negative EV games (I've never used cash back/comps/slot club fluff in any of my play scenarios) my rational is a bit different while still retaining some of the aspects shown on the AP above.

    During CY's 2000/2001/2002/2003 I played my SPS exclusively, and I won around $375k. I don't remember how many weekly sessions I played, but I'll use 150 total just to keep it simple. Since my progressive AND regressive strategy had an 80%-85% chance of obtaining my minimum $2500 win goal--which was a mere 5% of my session bankroll--I ended the majority of my sessions winning, with the largest being $95k or so. There were some losing sessions of course, with the largest being about $33k. Never did I wave goodbye to my $57,200 session bankroll (which was 1/3 my total gambling-specific bankroll).

    So was this playing in the long-term or short-term? I have no idea, but if I was "expected to have a slight loss" after the 4 years then I simply did not perform to expectation. However, I expected to win overall, because I used a strategy that squeezes every single advantage out of the various aspects of my play. It is a strategy that depends on luck to have worthwhile wins, and it ultimately depends on the ability of the player to quit the session as soon as either the win goal is reached, or all 6 denominational levels have been played thru. THIS is the part that 99.9% of players with money remaining in their pocket cannot do.

    The simple way of looking at this to those who ignorantly always want to think that +EV means you win and -EV means you lose, is each session having an 80-something% of winning. Win 8 of 10 and the critic says "but gee Rob, you won $20,000 in those 8 wins, but you lost $40,000 or more in the 2 losing sessions".

    This is typical twisted critic-logic with a side of stupidity. They use the minimum win goal of $2500 for each of the 8 winning sessions, while they claim the 2 losses were devastating losses. Complete BS of course, as the huge winners far outnumbered the larger losers. Why? BECAUSE THE STRATEGY TAKES MAXIMUM ADVANTAGE OF LUCK, BY GIVING IT THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR WHILE SOMETIMES SHUNNING INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE WINNERS TO GET THERE.

    Redietz' "University Math Professors" might scoff at some of this stuff and ask if these results could be duplicated by anyone I trained. The answer to that is "most likely, no, because I have yet to meet anyone as capable as I am in life as well as in video poker, which is precisely what it would take to duplicate my results". I'm not saying there isn't anyone who qualifies, but if these people exist I really wouldn't expect to find them hovering around a game enjoyed by white trash like Tonya Harding.

    These Professors would, in fact, agree that winning over time on slightly -EV games is entirely possible, albeit somewhat rare.

    These past dozen or so years I am also quite a bit ahead, by playing recreationally (no particular strategy) and infrequently, by playing maybe 10% Hi-limit games that have hit big winners, and by staying away from greed by continuing to mostly play low limit afterwards. Addicts typically jump up in denomination after an unexpected big hit. Winners go down.
    Rob, I want to commend you for a reasonable post, making points without name calling and all that. And your first point is correct. The basketball example isn't the best example. The roulette example I cite continues to be the best example, but since that doesn't seem to resonate, I tried to come up with another. It works, but is not the best example.

    After that your post goes downhill quickly (in my opinion) just because of the math. You are just repeating this Singer progression strategy that defies math. And when you conclude that no one else could win with this strategy, ONLY YOU, because no one else is as capable, it really gets to the heart of this. You seem to think or at least want everyone else to think that you are some kind of super being with special powers that defy math.

  13. #13
    Smurgerburger I know I lost more on ex wives than on casino gambling.
    It's all about quitting -- or pausing -- when ahead. Lock up the profit.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    You're using selective reasoning, as usual, when it comes to basically anything really. (The basketball game is a very poor example by the way.)

    I'm not sure what Alan does, but my approach is unlike any other. Sure anyone can win (or lose) in a short term scenario. Similarly, anyone can win in a long-term scenario. Just as you'd "suspect" an AP to be a long-term winner, not all are. Why is that? Because (and I'll use VP for simplicity) the expected cards just did not continue to come out at the mathematically expected (not guaranteed) rate. The LoLN's does not predict at 100% accuracy. Another reason may be that the person playing, even though they've played millions of hands, simply has not yet played enuf for his or her results to meet expectation yet.

    In my case, where the vast majority of my play has always been on very slightly negative EV games (I've never used cash back/comps/slot club fluff in any of my play scenarios) my rational is a bit different while still retaining some of the aspects shown on the AP above.

    During CY's 2000/2001/2002/2003 I played my SPS exclusively, and I won around $375k. I don't remember how many weekly sessions I played, but I'll use 150 total just to keep it simple. Since my progressive AND regressive strategy had an 80%-85% chance of obtaining my minimum $2500 win goal--which was a mere 5% of my session bankroll--I ended the majority of my sessions winning, with the largest being $95k or so. There were some losing sessions of course, with the largest being about $33k. Never did I wave goodbye to my $57,200 session bankroll (which was 1/3 my total gambling-specific bankroll).

    So was this playing in the long-term or short-term? I have no idea, but if I was "expected to have a slight loss" after the 4 years then I simply did not perform to expectation. However, I expected to win overall, because I used a strategy that squeezes every single advantage out of the various aspects of my play. It is a strategy that depends on luck to have worthwhile wins, and it ultimately depends on the ability of the player to quit the session as soon as either the win goal is reached, or all 6 denominational levels have been played thru. THIS is the part that 99.9% of players with money remaining in their pocket cannot do.

    The simple way of looking at this to those who ignorantly always want to think that +EV means you win and -EV means you lose, is each session having an 80-something% of winning. Win 8 of 10 and the critic says "but gee Rob, you won $20,000 in those 8 wins, but you lost $40,000 or more in the 2 losing sessions".

    This is typical twisted critic-logic with a side of stupidity. They use the minimum win goal of $2500 for each of the 8 winning sessions, while they claim the 2 losses were devastating losses. Complete BS of course, as the huge winners far outnumbered the larger losers. Why? BECAUSE THE STRATEGY TAKES MAXIMUM ADVANTAGE OF LUCK, BY GIVING IT THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR WHILE SOMETIMES SHUNNING INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE WINNERS TO GET THERE.

    Redietz' "University Math Professors" might scoff at some of this stuff and ask if these results could be duplicated by anyone I trained. The answer to that is "most likely, no, because I have yet to meet anyone as capable as I am in life as well as in video poker, which is precisely what it would take to duplicate my results". I'm not saying there isn't anyone who qualifies, but if these people exist I really wouldn't expect to find them hovering around a game enjoyed by white trash like Tonya Harding.

    These Professors would, in fact, agree that winning over time on slightly -EV games is entirely possible, albeit somewhat rare.

    These past dozen or so years I am also quite a bit ahead, by playing recreationally (no particular strategy) and infrequently, by playing maybe 10% Hi-limit games that have hit big winners, and by staying away from greed by continuing to mostly play low limit afterwards. Addicts typically jump up in denomination after an unexpected big hit. Winners go down.
    Rob, I want to commend you for a reasonable post, making points without name calling and all that. And your first point is correct. The basketball example isn't the best example. The roulette example I cite continues to be the best example, but since that doesn't seem to resonate, I tried to come up with another. It works, but is not the best example.

    After that your post goes downhill quickly (in my opinion) just because of the math. You are just repeating this Singer progression strategy that defies math. And when you conclude that no one else could win with this strategy, ONLY YOU, because no one else is as capable, it really gets to the heart of this. You seem to think or at least want everyone else to think that you are some kind of super being with special powers that defy math.
    Point to a specific section where I said I "defy math". I do understand however, why you would claim I'm a super being with special powers.

    The lesson in my post is that AP's can lose over the long term, just as non-AP's can win. The math does not guarantee anything when humans who can be distracted, fatigued, angered, or otherwise emotionally disturbed, play vs. a casino. The % edge vs. % give really isn't that much anyway. Conversely, no one can guarantee cards will turn mathematically perfect over any amount of time. And no one can predict who will have more and better luck. But if you DO have good luck, are you the type that can take advantage of it by quitting, or are you someone who allows it to take advantage of you?

    That's your super human vs. super loser.

  15. #15
    Of course playing with an advantage doesn't guarantee winning anything, even long-term if the player is a bad player. Easily distracted, making mistakes or chasing loses or anything along those lines. Doesn't THAT go Without saying?

  16. #16
    You can’t tell me you’re not down with the trolling on this site and then start this thread…

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by mcap View Post
    You can’t tell me you’re not down with the trolling on this site and then start this thread…
    It is either trolling or his incessant need to lecture everyone on fundamentals of gambling for whatever reason. There is no AP on here taking Alan or Rob's gambling advice seriously except Kewl.
    I wander through the path of life. Wondering. Wondering what my next signature on VCT should be.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by mcap View Post
    You can’t tell me you’re not down with the trolling on this site and then start this thread…
    It is either trolling or his incessant need to lecture everyone on fundamentals of gambling for whatever reason. There is no AP on here taking Alan or Rob's gambling advice seriously except Kewl.
    Cause he is nothing but a Gay, Lying, Dirty, Stinky, Smelly Rat!
    Rob Singer is Right.
    kewlJ is a Phony Bullshit Artist.
    And not a very good one at that.

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post

    Gosh Kewlj. Tell me how this can be accomplished in the short term but can't be repeated for the not so short term or the medium term or the long term?
    Does anyone still not understand now how people lose their whole life's accomplishments to the casino?......RIP
    Yes, we understand you are an addicted losing gambling posing as a professional. No one is buying it, poser pro maxturd.
    Maxpen.Is.The.Forum.Bitch

  20. #20
    Tag Team Cage Match!

    monet and mickeycrimm VERSUS Rat Fink Boz and MaxPen

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The term ploppy
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 05-14-2022, 07:12 AM
  2. Long term and short term
    By AndrewG in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 04-27-2022, 05:11 PM
  3. What is my "long term" for video poker?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 11-12-2015, 12:28 PM
  4. Playing according to long term math
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 05-23-2014, 10:38 AM
  5. Are there still "long term investors" who buy and hold?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Money, Shopping, Real Estate, Investing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2011, 10:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •