22 Hours at Caesars

[Alan Mendelson]

We are now in the car driving back to LA after playing the $2500 free play promotion I had at Caesars.

Rob I hope you won't be upset with me but I scrapped my plans to use discipline and to run the free play thru once and cash out. Here"s why:

During the ride up I said to Jason that I wanted to use $1000 of the free play on a high denomination VP game. I chose $25 8/5 Bonus since that gave me eight plays. Well luck was with me. I got trips and a straight and a full house and then VP heaven opened up and dropped a straight flush on me for $6250.

Then I moved to a $5 Bonus game and got quad aves ... The first of three.

Forget discipline. I had a blast and put through $200K coin-in assuring more promos in the future. I also played craps and DDB had a great seafood dinner in the room and left with a net win of $2K because I lost
$2988 playing craps. Damnt.

I also sent Jason to the salon for a much needed haircut using my comps. They charged $110 for the cut. At home I pay $18.

Typed this on my BlackBerry so excuse typos.

[redietz]

Alan, you're going to turn into the Stu Ungar of video poker --- you kill them at vp, then blow it on craps. You're hot at vp, man. What -- you got bored winning!?! Now let's see if Rob gives you the what for. If you're going to earn a spanking, pay some hooker to boot your behind; don't get it kicked at craps.

I'd like one of those $110 haircuts sometime on your comp dime, especially since I have no hair. Well, not quite true -- I'll be paying $11 for a haircut this week, and that may be a worse rip-off (considering my hair volume) than the $110 deal for your son.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, you're going to turn into the Stu Ungar of video poker --- you kill them at vp, then blow it on craps. You're hot at vp, man. What -- you got bored winning!?!

That's a very interesting comment, redietz. I've never separated my video poker results vs. craps results. I've only kept an annual running tally for all gaming. I can tell you even without specific numbers that I do much, much better at VP than at craps. I think I've had a $5,000 win at craps only twice in 15 years of playing. Heck, I've hit a dozen or more $4k to $20K+ royals in just the last 6 years.

But that's not the really interesting comment you made. This is what really got my attention. you wrote: "What -- you got bored winning!?!"

No, I didn't get bored, but the machine stopped paying. After I won the $6250 using free play, I went to the second machine with another $1500 of free play and in the course of that free play I hit the quad aces for $2000. And I kept playing... but after seeing my wins reduced quickly by about $1500 I said it was time to leave. The quads had stopped, even the full houses had stopped. I saw no reason to continue playing. Of course, this is something that the APs don't often mention -- the "cold periods" when the winning hands aren't coming. How much of a bankroll do they keep feeding into a machine before the machines start paying again?

By the way, after my first session at craps I went to another Bonus machine where I hit my second quad Aces, and then late Sunday afternoon my third quad aces was on the only $5 8/5 Bonus machine in the Palace Court high limit room.

By the way, I've heard all kinds of rumors about that lone $5 8/5 Bonus machine in the Palace Court. I know that it's rarely "open" and I also know that players swear by it.

The first time I played it, it gave me quad queens within the first $200 in.
The second time I played it, it gave me quad queens within the first $200 in.
On Sunday, it dealt me quad queens within the first ten hands played.

I started with $1000 in that machine, got paid the $2,000 for the quad aces, and cashed out a ticket for $2,000 on that machine thanks to various quads that were coming rather rapidly. That was a net profit on that machine of $3,000 (which went to pay markers on craps, by the way.)

[arcimede$]

Of course, this is something that the APs don't often mention -- the "cold periods" when the winning hands aren't coming. How much of a bankroll do they keep feeding into a machine before the machines start paying again?

APer's mention streaks all the time. I don't know where you get this nonsense, Alan. If machines are random then they will be streaky as that is the very nature of randomness applied to high variance games. You really didn't think a BP machine would pay out 200% or better did you?

If you would just think about randomness then all your questions would be answered.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think you missed my question Arc. How much of your bankroll do you keep feeding into a machine before the machines start paying again? I doubt you have an unlimited bankroll to handle these random cold streaks.

I've played $5 8/5 Bonus machines that didn't make a paying pair for 20+ hands in a row... and that's $500.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I did answer your question. You never know how much you will lose between winning streaks. Randomness means you can't know. It can be different every time. That is why I told you to "think about randomness then all your questions would be answered".

My bankroll is close to unlimited at the denomination I play.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, once you understand that an addicted AP like arci will always point out having an "unlimited bankroll" at the denomination he says he plays because not one of them actually has an identified amount of gaming bankroll as they always purport to have. As he did during his disastrous stint in LV, arci will use whatever amount of cash he can get his hands on from whatever source....for as long as possible. That's exactly why the casinos they all crow about have so many promotions that purposely create +EV games for these chumps. As the manager of TI's casino told me for an interesting GT article I wrote in the mid 2000's, the more promotions they have the more money they make, and they count on those who refer to themselves as AP's to deliver the goods on queue.

Now for your own bloop. How you chose to play the $2500 is one thing and as long as it's played thru just once is the key, but WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU--$6250++ wasn't enough of a profit to take home? So what that you got "200,000 points"! Is that worth four or five thousand dollars in cash TODAY? Now do you understand why you don't have winning years and why they send you all those rope 'em in deals? You must do exactly the opposite of what the,casinos expect you to do in order to be a consistent winner. Forget the paytables--discipline is your most required asset.

[Alan Mendelson]

My bankroll is close to unlimited at the denomination I play.

There isn't a video poker machine on earth with a cheap enough coin in slot or denomination that would allow me to say that I had an unlimited bankroll.

[Alan Mendelson]

Now for your own bloop. How you chose to play the $2500 is one thing and as long as it's played thru just once is the key, but WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU--$6250++ wasn't enough of a profit to take home?

Yes, Rob, I'm bad. I'm an idiot. I'm dumb. But the real reason why I didn't bring home more money was that I played craps.
My "win goal" for the trip was $2,000 and I did bring home the $2,000.

Will I look back at my additional play and say to myself "why didn't I just keep that cash in my pocket?" The answer is yes -- I have already asked myself that. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[arcimede$]

There isn't a video poker machine on earth with a cheap enough coin in slot or denomination that would allow me to say that I had an unlimited bankroll.

That is probably true. When a person plays a negative game their bankroll, by definition, must be infinite to play forever. However, if you play with an edge, that is not the case. You can then compute bankroll requirements and make decisions on it. That's why I said "close" to unlimited. I have a much less than 1% chance of going bankrupt.

[redietz]

Alan, you're getting it now. Playing negative games requires an actually unlimited bankroll to keep playing. So you are correct.

[Alan Mendelson]

That is probably true. When a person plays a negative game their bankroll, by definition, must be infinite to play forever. However, if you play with an edge, that is not the case. You can then compute bankroll requirements and make decisions on it. That's why I said "close" to unlimited. I have a much less than 1% chance of going bankrupt.

I understand your reasoning here and I understand your theory. But I really question whether players have the edge they think they have because I doubt that the RNGs are reliable as advantage play hopes they are. For example if royals hit with the "expected frequency" that is needed to maintain that edge you think you have.

Let's face, your theoretical edge would be completely wiped out if you never hit a royal flush since most royals contribute about 2% to the return of a game.

I know that if I didn't have that 170-thousand hand period of not hitting a royal, and if I had hit two royals in that period, I would have been profitable for video poker. You're going to argue with me over this, but your luck has so much to do with the reality of your "edge" that you think you have.

[Rob.Singer]

Bankroll requirements and Risk of Ruin assertions, as more theories promoted by AP's, are nothing but useless, meaningless nonsense. Bankroll only survives if good luck occurs, and that is the reality. Those who create nonsensical calculations of bankroll survivability probability only do so in order to justify playing more than they know they should.

Arci further demonstrates mathematical incompetence by claiming he has "much less than 1% chance of going bankrupt"....supposedly from playing oej. While he may have simply just caught himself in another of his own traps, we'll give him the benefit this time because he really needs it. In 1996 according to guru RoR calculations, I had a 5% chance of LOSING MY GAMING BANKROLL--not going bankrupt. I actually did file bankruptcy, but I neither lost my gaming roll or my retirement savings. That hefty amount wasn't touchable back then. So when arci says he has little chance of going bankrupt, does he really know what he's saying? I'd expect better from our "tested genius".

[arcimede$]

I understand your reasoning here and I understand your theory. But I really question whether players have the edge they think they have because I doubt that the RNGs are reliable as advantage play hopes they are. For example if royals hit with the "expected frequency" that is needed to maintain that edge you think you have.

What part of random don't you understand? I think it's telling that you always mention lower than average frequencies when above average frequencies have the same probability of happening. Are you always pessimistic?

[Alan Mendelson]

What part of random don't you understand? I think it's telling that you always mention lower than average frequencies when above average frequencies have the same probability of happening. Are you always pessimistic?

This is an excellent question: Are you always pessimistic?

Let me put it this way: I am very skeptical of anyone who says they can beat a casino or a casino game and because I am a skeptic I will "challenge" claims and reports as if I was from Missouri and wanted to see it before my own eyes. Now, if being skeptical bothers you and gets under your skin (which it appears to be doing) I'm sorry. But I have to keep asking -- it's my nature. I know this aggravated people on LVA and that's just tough on them.

I have never been caught up in a scam-- though people have tried, but I have unveiled scams and helped put the crooks in prison.

I am not pessimistic when I play in a casino, and I realize that if you are lucky you can win. I am skeptical of those who say they have a plan for winning that goes beyond money management and making the most of what luck you might have.

My skepticism is a bit more tamed when it comes to live poker and sports betting because skill and knowledge have a bigger impact with them. I think video poker is primarily luck and where knowledge of the games and strategy can help you make the best of the luck you have.

[Alan Mendelson]

I actually did file bankruptcy, but I neither lost my gaming roll or my retirement savings. That hefty amount wasn't touchable back then.

In my college days when I worked for attorneys filing court documents, and serving unsuspecting businessmen with subpoenas and court orders (wow, the stories I can tell) I also got to sit in on meetings with some clients and heard lots about "bankruptcy."

Bankruptcy is not a punishment. Bankruptcy has always been intended to give people and businesses another chance. In the case of corporations, the bankruptcy laws treat a business as a human being, with a right to live and a right to survive, so debts can be wiped out. In the case of people, the right to bankruptcy and to start over goes back to The Bible.

Because bankruptcy is not a punishment, consumers can retain various assets including pensions and retirement plans and funds.

[arcimede$]

This is an excellent question: Are you always pessimistic?

Let me put it this way: I am very skeptical of anyone who says they can beat a casino or a casino game and because I am a skeptic I will "challenge" claims and reports as if I was from Missouri and wanted to see it before my own eyes. Now, if being skeptical bothers you and gets under your skin (which it appears to be doing) I'm sorry. But I have to keep asking -- it's my nature. I know this aggravated people on LVA and that's just tough on them.

There's nothing wrong with skepticism as long as it's based on factual evidence. However, you base your's on nothing but your own experience playing negative games. That's really not skepticism, that's ignorance.

I have never been caught up in a scam-- though people have tried, but I have unveiled scams and helped put the crooks in prison.

You were "caught up" in Singer's scam. Sorry, but you seem pretty naive to me.

I am not pessimistic when I play in a casino, and I realize that if you are lucky you can win. I am skeptical of those who say they have a plan for winning that goes beyond money management and making the most of what luck you might have.

Luck has little to do with winning over time. Skill is by far the most important factor.

My skepticism is a bit more tamed when it comes to live poker and sports betting because skill and knowledge have a bigger impact with them. I think video poker is primarily luck and where knowledge of the games and strategy can help you make the best of the luck you have.

So, in one case you believe skill matters but in another situation skill is not a factor? Do you ever read over the nonsense you write? I mean, come on. That's just plain silly.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, did you ever consider your own bias? You keep saying Singer runs a scam. And I keep asking you to tell me what is the scam?

[arcimede$]

Arc, did you ever consider your own bias? You keep saying Singer runs a scam. And I keep asking you to tell me what is the scam?

I've already explained it to you many times.

- No betting system can change the return of a VP game (mathematically proven). Singer claims the only way to win is through his "system" which is nothing but a betting system.
- Special plays only reduce the ER of a game and most of his special plays reduce the chances of reaching a win goal ... the stated reason for their existence.
- Singer claims math based players always lose. No, they don't. The majority of them win.
- Singer provides "education sessions" where he teaches players his system. However, he has them use his player's card so he can reap the rewards of those sessions while the player's end up learning how to lose even more money.

You've seen him make his nonsensical claims many times. Why do I have to repeat it for you?

[Alan Mendelson]

You've seen him make his nonsensical claims many times. Why do I have to repeat it for you?

Because it is not a "scam."

Some accepted and common definitions of a scam: "a fraudulent business scheme," and, "the act of swindling by some fraudulent scheme."

What is the scam you allege, Arc?