Ramblin and Gamblin Thru Nevada

[bigfoot66]

Just wanted to post a quick book Review. I was having trouble finding one of Rob's books available for sale and he was kind enough to send me a copy of Ramblin and Gamblin Thru Nevada. It is a short fun read and I recomend it. I am familiar with most of the places he describes gambling and it is fun to go with him on his journey as he wins some $$$. No one here will be surprised when I say that he takes occasional shots at the math VP gurus, but that is all part of the fun. If you are looking for a fun, light gambling story pick it up and enjoy! Thanks Rob!

[slingshot]

Yeah-I enjoyed his adventures in his articles when he had his forum.

[Alan Mendelson]

It is a "fun, light gambling story," as you wrote bigfoot66. Unfortunalely both of Rob's books lack the real guts of his playing system. Had it been published he would have gotten a lot more respect and less criticism. And unfortunately there are more false rumors about Rob's system than facts that have been published on the web. And even though there ae a lot of facts in the interviews I did with him here on this website, too few people have read it or watched the interviews. Or else they just ignored what he said.

[arcimede$]

Or else they just ignored what he said.

Great advice.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you are probably #1 on the list of people who ignore what he said, and failed to even understand what he said.

I'm not going to pretend that Rob's system is flawless. In fact, it has many flaws and many things that I disagree with and do not and would not follow. Yet, there are many strengths in what he says and practices. You, Arc, even criticize the "system's strong points," and the ones you challenge you challenge with ideas that everyone else with common sense will understand, yet you say are ludicrous such as not believing in the concept of "quitting when ahead" or stopping play when you reach a win goal.

But you are not alone in objecting to the concept of win goals. I guess it's easy to object to common sense when you are either very wealthy with a huge bankroll for playing, or in the case of another critic, you don't even play with your own money.

[redietz]

The idea of win goals is useful only if Max the Legbreaker has told you that you have until sundown to come up with 5K or you'll be crawling home without kneecaps. I can live with "fatigue goals," but win goals have no real utility. I think Rob's attitude towards casinos is to be commended and is his most valuable weapon.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz: if you don't use a win goal then how do you justify a loss limit? Or don't you use loss limits either?

[redietz]

No loss limits. My gambling bankroll is enormous compared to my video poker play, which is 80% at the quarter level.

[Alan Mendelson]

No loss limits. My gambling bankroll is enormous compared to my video poker play, which is 80% at the quarter level.

I think with my usual budget, I wouldn't have a loss limit either playing 25-cent video poker. But, redietz, what if you were playing $1, $2 or $5 video poker?

And to be honest, EVERYONE has a loss limit. If you don't you're crazy. You can't keep losing forever. You might think you have a bankroll that will always take you through the valleys but to think you can outlast any and all strings of losses is irresponsible.

If you are a good gambler, you have discipline. If you don't have discipline you are setting yourself up for disaster.

[slingshot]

It is a "fun, light gambling story," as you wrote bigfoot66. Unfortunalely both of Rob's books lack the real guts of his playing system. Had it been published he would have gotten a lot more respect and less criticism. And unfortunately there are more false rumors about Rob's system than facts that have been published on the web. And even though there ae a lot of facts in the interviews I did with him here on this website, too few people have read it or watched the interviews. Or else they just ignored what he said.

It was-for free-on VPTruth.com. But you still had to read all the articles and make sure you got the gist of what he was saying.

[Alan Mendelson]

It was-for free-on VPTruth.com. But you still had to read all the articles and make sure you got the gist of what he was saying.

VPtruth.com no longer exists. So what's your point?

My point is that the book lives on.

[redietz]

You're missing the gist, Alan. Discipline doesn't lie in stopping after losing a certain amount. Discipline lies in knowing what you're doing in a complete and prepared fashion, and structuring what you're doing so risk of ruin is some one in a million fantasy. Discipline lies in the preparation, not the execution. In this particular instance, part of the discipline is sticking to 80% 25-cent video poker that I know well, taking advantage of every promo day available to play the bulk of it, and playing it only when not fatigued. Nothing devastating or bad is going to happen to me playing video poker. I've never walked away from a video poker session wailing about how I lost much more than expected and how I lost control or was drunk or something. Hasn't happened; never will.

[Alan Mendelson]

You're missing the gist, Alan. Discipline doesn't lie in stopping after losing a certain amount. Discipline lies in knowing what you're doing in a complete and prepared fashion, and structuring what you're doing so risk of ruin is some one in a million fantasy. Discipline lies in the preparation, not the execution. In this particular instance, part of the discipline is sticking to 80% 25-cent video poker that I know well, taking advantage of every promo day available to play the bulk of it, and playing it only when not fatigued. Nothing devastating or bad is going to happen to me playing video poker. I've never walked away from a video poker session wailing about how I lost much more than expected and how I lost control or was drunk or something. Hasn't happened; never will.

Then it seems to me that you are using discipline for part of the game, but not for all of it. It seems to me you are using good sense for part, but not all. So you think that using your brains for half the battle wins the war? Come on now!

I really can't believe you wrote this: Discipline lies in the preparation, not the execution. This is like saying, I'm only going to play the full pay games. But I won't give a damn if I go broke doing it.

[redietz]

Just a thought experiment: picture playing basketball games with your team. Every time you get behind by eight points, your team walks off the court. Every time your team gets ahead, they walk off the court. What effect does this have on how good your team is? The answer is none, unless fatigue was becoming an issue. Now if your team was playing a superior team (a negative expectation scenario), then walking off when down eight probably saved you a good beating. If your team, however, was better, then walking off when up two didn't do you much good except you get a "W" in the win column.

What you're recommending, Alan, actually has a down side. If you try to apply this to other forms of gambling, namely sports gambling, your recommendations are in reality bad for the player. Why? Because if someone is winning and winning big, they are locked in to the reality of what teams can and cannot do. If they decide, gee, it's time for a win-goal stoppage, the sports books breathe a sigh of relief. So although what you are recommending may have some value for some kinds of investing/gambling (and that's questionable), it may be a really bad idea for other forms of investing/gambling.

I mean, really, if someone you know is beating hell out of the stock market for five or six years, do you give them a win-goal stoppage lecture and tell them they're making a huge mistake?

[arcimede$]

I really can't believe you wrote this: Discipline lies in the preparation, not the execution. This is like saying, I'm only going to play the full pay games. But I won't give a damn if I go broke doing it.

No Alan, you missed the point that redietz was making. With proper preparation you won't go broke. You will play a prescribed amount of time because you realize that any more will cause you to tire and start making mistakes ("playing it only when not fatigued"). Therefore, every session has a limit. You really should try and read more carefully.

[Alan Mendelson]

Just a thought experiment: picture playing basketball games with your team. Every time you get behind by eight points, your team walks off the court. Every time your team gets ahead, they walk off the court. What effect does this have on how good your team is?

I mean, really, if someone you know is beating hell out of the stock market for five or six years, do you give them a win-goal stoppage lecture and tell them they're making a huge mistake?

First of all, basketball is a ridiculous analogy here.

However, the stock market is not only an excellent analogy but serious investors do have loss limits and win goals in the stock market. It is not only a good tool, it is encouraged. Did you ever hear of stop losses? That's a way to not only prevent massive losses but also a way to protect profits. Did you ever hear of investors selling a portion of their original shares on the way up to lock in profits so that they "repay themselves" and reduce the cost basis on remaining shares? It's done all the time.

If it works on Wall Street... it can work on Las Vegas Boulevard. (Ooh. I wax poetic!)

[Alan Mendelson]

No Alan, you missed the point that redietz was making. With proper preparation you won't go broke. You will play a prescribed amount of time because you realize that any more will cause you to tire and start making mistakes ("playing it only when not fatigued"). Therefore, every session has a limit. You really should try and read more carefully.

redietz got it right when he presented the stock market as an example of why loss limits and win goals work. the rest of it is foolishness.

I wish you math people would come back to earth. Next time you're in a barber chair, or the next time you're at a cocktail party with NON gamblers ask them what they would do about cashing out after a big win, or after winning $2,500 or after doubling up on a $500 gambling budget? Ask them if they would take the money and run.

I've said this before and I will say it again: ONLY VIDEO POKER MATH PEOPLE reject the idea of win goals. EVERYONE who plays live poker cash games, and craps and every other form of casino betting ACCEPTS the idea and USES A STRATEGY that involves "TAKING THE MONEY AND RUNNING" but ONLY MATH PEOPLE IN VIDEO POKER REJECT these ideas. WHY??????????

[arcimede$]

I've said this before and I will say it again: ONLY VIDEO POKER MATH PEOPLE reject the idea of win goals. EVERYONE who plays live poker cash games, and craps and every other form of casino betting ACCEPTS the idea and USES A STRATEGY that involves "TAKING THE MONEY AND RUNNING" but ONLY MATH PEOPLE IN VIDEO POKER REJECT these ideas. WHY??????????

They don't reject those ideas, Alan. Once again you demonstrate you're inability to understand what is being said. The reason you have win/loss goals in the stock market is because the market is not a constant return. It varies between being positive (bull) and negative (bear). So, you have different strategies because of this variability. You don't want to play when stocks are dropping. That is why you sell.

Now, in VP you have a consistent expectation that is either positive or negative. As a result the strategy is DON'T PLAY negative return games (sell, actually never buy) and continue to play positive expectation games (buy).

You're ignorance of the basics involved has allowed you to fall for silly nonsense.

As for those who are playing a negative return game like craps ... they have nothing to do with stocks. No good investor buys into a falling stock. Only fools do that.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: No good investor buys into a falling stock.

Arc, sometimes you don't know when to stop. I only wish I bought into a falling stock with the symbol of LVS back during the market meltdown. I wish I had bought it as it fell all the way down from about $38 in September of 2008 to about $1.77 a share on March 2, 2009. Because as I write this, this morning, it's trading at $46.67.

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote: No good investor buys into a falling stock.

Arc, sometimes you don't know when to stop. I only wish I bought into a falling stock with the symbol of LVS back during the market meltdown. I wish I had bought it as it fell all the way down from about $38 in September of 2008 to about $1.77 a share on March 2, 2009. Because as I write this, this morning, it's trading at $46.67.

Ok, I simplified things a little too much. You want to buy when a stock or index has a positive expectation. That is the key. With VP it is easy to know when a game has a positive expectation. With stocks it's a lot more difficult. Only through significant analysis can you make any kind of call. And, even then, you could be wrong. That is why the stock market is NOT a good analogy to VP play.

Edit: One way to look at a positive VP game is like a stock that was guaranteed to always to up over time. When would you sell a stock that was guaranteed to go up?