"Recreational Gamblers"

[redietz]

Trying to teach self-defined "recreational gamblers" either math (in Arci's case) or discipline (in Rob's) makes as little sense as trying to teach pigs to do calculus or lose weight. All you do is frustrate yourself and annoy the pigs.

[arcimede$]

Oh I don't know. I think some pigs are probably as good at math as some folks who comment here.

[Alan Mendelson]

Recreational gamblers are more likely going to take the chances that violate the long term math. Case in point: being dealt KK885 in double double bonus which is probably the #1 game for recreational video poker players The recreational gambler will hold the pair of kings reasoning that the pair of kings alone pays the same as the two pair and opens the door to quad kings.

So many times I will be sitting next to someone who does that, and draws the quads, and gloats about how smart they were not to hold the two pair even though they knew holding the two pair was the proper/correct play.

Yet, how can you argue with their success? You can't say to them "oh, you made a mistake." Or can you?

[Rob.Singer]

Oh I don't know. I think some pigs are probably as good at math as some folks who comment here.

You have a self-esteem problem too?

I sure hope that doesn't flow over into when you're boiling water.

[Rob.Singer]

Trying to teach self-defined "recreational gamblers" either math (in Arci's case) or discipline (in Rob's) makes as little sense as trying to teach pigs to do calculus or lose weight. All you do is frustrate yourself and annoy the pigs.

By and large that's a good statement. But, as you've seen, I've had just a tad bit more fun than that!

[slingshot]

Recreational gamblers are more likely going to take the chances that violate the long term math. Case in point: being dealt KK885 in double double bonus which is probably the #1 game for recreational video poker players The recreational gambler will hold the pair of kings reasoning that the pair of kings alone pays the same as the two pair and opens the door to quad kings.

So many times I will be sitting next to someone who does that, and draws the quads, and gloats about how smart they were not to hold the two pair even though they knew holding the two pair was the proper/correct play.

Yet, how can you argue with their success? You can't say to them "oh, you made a mistake." Or can you?

Well, if the 35 credits won't get me back to the get-go, I hold the K's. Dang! Can't I ever get it right? LOL.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, if the 35 credits won't get me back to the get-go, I hold the K's. Dang! Can't I ever get it right? LOL.

This is why I will never criticize Rob's "Special Plays" even though (for the most part) I don't use them myself. What the special play does is open the door to a possible big win. And if you get lucky you get the big win. Can you ever argue against someone who dropped the second pair and then drew quads? Of course not. Can you ever argue against someone who dropped a full house holding three aces and then drew the fourth ace in bonus poker? Of course not.

The "math" says not to do those things, but when you do and you win all you can say is "I got lucky."

And there is nothing wrong with getting lucky.

[arcimede$]

And there is nothing wrong with getting lucky.

Absolutely, we all know that most of the time those folks are losing money due to this kind of short sighted play. So, let them bask in the glory of the occasional win.

[Alan Mendelson]

Absolutely, we all know that most of the time those folks are losing money due to this kind of short sighted play. So, let them bask in the glory of the occasional win.

You're right of course. But some recreational gamblers don't look at the long term. Heck, most of these people go to a casino once or twice a year. They play maybe an hour, and they probably are slow, meticulous players. Theyre going to hold three aces no matter what the math says.

[arcimede$]

You're right of course. But some recreational gamblers don't look at the long term. Heck, most of these people go to a casino once or twice a year. They play maybe an hour, and they probably are slow, meticulous players. Theyre going to hold three aces no matter what the math says.

I suspect there are some that meet your description. However, there are many more that play regularly and do exactly the same thing ... and brag about it to boot. That's OK as long as they are having fun.

[Alan Mendelson]

I suspect there are some that meet your description. However, there are many more that play regularly and do exactly the same thing ... and brag about it to boot. That's OK as long as they are having fun.

Again you're correct. I play regularly with a guy at Rincon --he's at the $5 DDB machine, and Im playing bonus -- who always holds only one pair when dealt two, and he will hold the high paying pair and will gloat as they give him a $1250 hand pay for the quads. But how do you argue with the guy when he's getting he hand pay? You don't.

And when you hold a full house with three aces in bonus, you always wonder if you had broken up the full house would you have drawn the fourth ace??

[arcimede$]

And when you hold a full house with three aces in bonus, you always wonder if you had broken up the full house would you have drawn the fourth ace??

It all gets down to whether you trust the machines are random. If you do, then you figure you will lose money breaking up the FH in BP. How does one develop trust? Well, I did it by keeping track of my results in many areas to see if they match random expectation.

[Alan Mendelson]

It all gets down to whether you trust the machines are random. If you do, then you figure you will lose money breaking up the FH in BP. How does one develop trust? Well, I did it by keeping track of my results in many areas to see if they match random expectation.

Whoa, you have to explain this one to me: what does trusting random machines have to do with holding just a pair in DDB hoping to get quads, or breaking up a full house with 3 aces in Bonus?? I don't see the connection between trust that the machines are random and what you might play??

[slingshot]

The most often overlooked thing is that you don't always get the FH, either. And if I'm over the 35 credits behind, I'm sure gonna try for quads. After all, I'm not gonna be there for long. And since anything can happen at anytime and no one has ANY idea where the program is in the machine, why not give yourself the opportunity to win at key moments? To me the math and ap plays are nothing more than ploys to keep the player from using common sense. Also, I have still gotten the full house going for quads anyway.

[arcimede$]

Whoa, you have to explain this one to me: what does trusting random machines have to do with holding just a pair in DDB hoping to get quads, or breaking up a full house with 3 aces in Bonus?? I don't see the connection between trust that the machines are random and what you might play??

Nice switcheroo, Alan. My comment was in response to your comment about breaking up a FH in BP (which I clearly quoted). You respond by bringing up breaking up a pair in DDB. Let's keep it simple (although it does apply to both situations).

The point of my comment is the only way for breaking up the FH to be a good play is if the machines do not make the quad aces at the known statistical rate based on randomness. You do realize that all strategies are based on the machines being random. If they are not random then there's no way of knowing how often you would hit the quad aces.

[arcimede$]

The most often overlooked thing is that you don't always get the FH, either. And if I'm over the 35 credits behind, I'm sure gonna try for quads. After all, I'm not gonna be there for long.

As I've pointed out in the past. The credits you lose going for the quad reduce the number of hands you will play. The odds of hitting a quad with those extra credits is often HIGHER than the odds of hitting a quad when you drop the pair. However, I don't expect simple math and logic to change your mind.

And since anything can happen at anytime and no one has ANY idea where the program is in the machine, why not give yourself the opportunity to win at key moments? To me the math and ap plays are nothing more than ploys to keep the player from using common sense. Also, I have still gotten the full house going for quads anyway.

Like I said, when someone can't understand the math they treat it like it is voodoo, once again proving that "common sense" isn't really all that common.

BTW, the RNG "program" likely generates tens, if not hundreds of thousands of cards every second. There is no "place" where it is sitting waiting for you.

[Rob.Singer]

Nice switcheroo, Alan. My comment was in response to your comment about breaking up a FH in BP (which I clearly quoted). You respond by bringing up breaking up a pair in DDB. Let's keep it simple (although it does apply to both situations).

The point of my comment is the only way for breaking up the FH to be a good play is if the machines do not make the quad aces at the known statistical rate based on randomness. You do realize that all strategies are based on the machines being random. If they are not random then there's no way of knowing how often you would hit the quad aces.

Another dumb statement, made with the confused belief that every player is an addict like him and will play millions of hands on every machine they sit at.

No one knows how many times a machine's hit anything or will hit anything. I've hit so many quad Aces by tossing FH's that even if I never receive anything more than trips again, I'll be tens of thousands of dollars ahead forever because of that play. Again, it's the difference between an addict in it in order to pile up the slot club points and be able to claim as many phantom bucks as possible in order to justify playing far more than he knows he should--and playing to actually make a real profit. That's why I've made so much money playing the machines and live an enjoyable life in retirement these days....and why he's stuck in a no-way-out quagmire with only lies as an escape.

[arcimede$]

Another dumb statement, made with the confused belief that every player is an addict like him and will play millions of hands on every machine they sit at.

Once again you show your incompetence. It wouldn't take anywhere near "millions of hands" to run into this situation many times. If it did, no one would care since they would likely never even get the choice.

No one knows how many times a machine's hit anything or will hit anything. I've hit so many quad Aces by tossing FH's that even if I never receive anything more than trips again, I'll be tens of thousands of dollars ahead forever because of that play.

Let's assume your being honest (doubtful). If you've been lucky enough to hit extra quads that means someone else would have been unlucky. We all know at the number of hands played in casinos that the total numbers are extremely close to expectation. That means any person who might also be a little unlucky (or even average luck) in the future will lose a lot of money if they followed your advice. Only an individual who was extremely lucky would come out ahead. Pretty silly advice coming from someone who claims to know anything at all about VP.

Now, let's also consider that you claim to play very little. How is it you managed to come across this situation so often? You just stated above it would take "millions of hands" to see this enough to make a difference.

Which lie do you want to stick with?

[Rob.Singer]

As I've pointed out in the past. The credits you lose going for the quad reduce the number of hands you will play. The odds of hitting a quad with those extra credits is often HIGHER than the odds of hitting a quad when you drop the pair. However, I don't expect simple math and logic to change your mind.
Like I said, when someone can't understand the math they treat it like it is voodoo, once again proving that "common sense" isn't really all that common.

BTW, the RNG "program" likely generates tens, if not hundreds of thousands of cards every second. There is no "place" where it is sitting waiting for you.

You can't even get your math straight-let alone your lies. And that's exactly why you've never been able to sell your BS to anyone here or on any other forum, and why you're having to live the way you do today.

The odds of hitting a quad with those extra credits can't "often be higher" or lower, for that matter. It is mathematically always the same. And in a single session where no one knows what the machine has served up in the past, there's no "odds" anyway since the big hit could be there every time YOU decide to play. Again, all that math theory means absolutely nothing at the machines, because you have no idea how its "randomness" will react to your hold.

I really do suggest, if you care how foolish you look to other people - and what else do you really have left, that you think a bit more before sticking your mathematical foot in your mouth. You waste hours every day trying to convince others of your math prowess, yet you expose your weakness in the area time and time again. Not really the stuff confidence is made of, especially when you need it as much as you seem to do.

[Rob.Singer]

Once again you show your incompetence. It wouldn't take anywhere near "millions of hands" to run into this situation many times. If it did, no one would care since they would likely never even get the choice.



Let's assume your being honest (doubtful). If you've been lucky enough to hit extra quads that means someone else would have been unlucky. We all know at the number of hands played in casinos that the total numbers are extremely close to expectation. That means any person who might also be a little unlucky (or even average luck) in the future will lose a lot of money if they followed your advice. Only an individual who was extremely lucky would come out ahead. Pretty silly advice coming from someone who claims to know anything at all about VP.

Now, let's also consider that you claim to play very little. How is it you managed to come across this situation so often? You just stated above it would take "millions of hands" to see this enough to make a difference.

Which lie do you want to stick with?

You say if I've been lucky then someone else "had to be unlucky". Maybe your dumbest statement yet, and God knows you've made plenty of them.

I haven't been any "luckier" with standard optimal play than anyone else who plays--even you. But because I make the special plays that give luck a better opportunity to show up, it obviously does. As for there needing to be an opposite bad luckster to make up for my good luck, you're either smoking the funny weed or drinking the silly juice, because no math book would ever suggest such nonsense when it comes to individual vp machines. Come back when you understand the logic BEHIND the math.

While I'm at it, I'll enlighten your challenged mind on why the special plays have zero to do with reducing game EV, and why they actually do result in less hands played overall. Yes you got that part right, but you have no idea why. I'll fix that one for you too.

Occasionally a special play hits, and that means likely hundreds less hands needed to be played in that session because of a concept no AP would ever comprehend: it means it's time to quit and leave., And it has meant THOUSANDS less hands needed to be played over the course of my 11 years playing that way. This silly long-term application notion that special plays lower EV and thus the # of hands because of it, is just another of your countless uneducated guesses on your part when it comes to my strategy.

The "millions of hands" needed to realize your reduced EV is a fault of yours, not the special plays. I didn't play "little" either. But in 11 years of playing my strategies I played far less that 6 years of being an AP. So in order for me to categorize and straighten out all your lies, you need to get both your assertions AND your lies in order, first.