"Recreational Gamblers"

[arcimede$]

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.

Nice projection after I made you look like a complete fool.

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.

I see you're still wandering around in a cloud. The returns for 2-4, 5-10 and J-A are different in many games. So, depending on which situation a person encounters the comparison will be different. It also depends on the exact game and pay table. A simple change in the return of the FH would affect the situation. You'd think someone who claims to be a VP expert would already know this.

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.

Absolutely hysterical. You mention what a machine "served up in the past" AND "since the big hit could be there every time". Two directly opposing thoughts. You really are confused, aren't you. PS. Every hand is independent and random.

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.

Pure projection as you prove once again what a d---- you really are. I do enjoy the belly laughs, however. Keep it up.

[arcimede$]

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.

No, that is simple statistics. That's what a bell curve represents. The people on the left are unlucky while the people on the right are lucky. Of course, we already know you haven't a clue about simple math let alone statistics. But hey, thanks for pointing out to everyone just how dumb you really are.

I haven't been any "luckier" with standard optimal play than anyone else who plays--even you.

OK, so now you're admitting you've been lying all the time about your results. Not surprising.

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.

The logic is called statistics. Maybe you should trundle back to your trailer with your tail between your legs. Your understanding of mathematics is pathetic.

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.

That would be all good except for one little problem. Most of your special plays reduce the chances of hitting your win goals. So, your above claims work almost 180° the other way. Sorry, but you are wrong in almost everything you say. At least you're consistent.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci, clearly you rushed thru all that with basically the same lie every time. What happened--you have to go out and get a fresh supply of prunes? Or did your walker need more "fortification" to handle all the gains? At this point with the flurry of mis-spoken comments you make when relating back to the math, I may not be the only one here who would want to see--and verify--your diploma, even if it is only from your local state college.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you said two things in this thread that seem to me to contradict.

First statement: We all know at the number of hands played in casinos that the total numbers are extremely close to expectation.

Second statement: Every hand is independent and random.

My question: If the first is correct, how can the second be correct? I am not saying that the first statement is incorrect. I am just wondering how the overall number of hands played can be "extremely close to expectation" if all hands (and that means all machines and all games) are independent and random?

I suspect, for example, that some machines have hit more royals than others because of randomness. And I suspect different players do not have the same "hit rate" for royal flushes because of randomness.

[Rob.Singer]

The first mistake was saying he knows it all comes out close to expectation. Of course that's a dumb statement because he has no idea what any of the actual machine statistics are. Then, to complete his blooper-filled post, he said nothing about how most if not all machines--FPDW and all others included--never even come,close to expectation because of the variety of people playing them.

Better give him another shot at this.

[arcimede$]

Arci, clearly you rushed thru all that with basically the same lie every time. What happened--you have to go out and get a fresh supply of prunes? Or did your walker need more "fortification" to handle all the gains? At this point with the flurry of mis-spoken comments you make when relating back to the math, I may not be the only one here who would want to see--and verify--your diploma, even if it is only from your local state college.

Translation: Wheels now knows he made a complete fool of himself and is hoping people reading this bluff will not be smart enough to realize it.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you said two things in this thread that seem to me to contradict.

First statement: We all know at the number of hands played in casinos that the total numbers are extremely close to expectation.

Second statement: Every hand is independent and random.

My question: If the first is correct, how can the second be correct? I am not saying that the first statement is incorrect. I am just wondering how the overall number of hands played can be "extremely close to expectation" if all hands (and that means all machines and all games) are independent and random?

I suspect, for example, that some machines have hit more royals than others because of randomness. And I suspect different players do not have the same "hit rate" for royal flushes because of randomness.

The first statement applied to the casinos themselves where hundreds of millions (or more) hands get played over time. Naturally, at those large numbers the results will be very close to expectation. And, the reason we know what the expectation should be is due to the second statement.

Will some machines hit more royals than others ... sure, but the total number of hands is so large that the result will still be close to the overall expectation. Remember, the RF only accounts for around 2% of the total return in most games. The rest of the results simply overpower any difference in royals.

[arcimede$]

The first mistake was saying he knows it all comes out close to expectation. Of course that's a dumb statement because he has no idea what any of the actual machine statistics are. Then, to complete his blooper-filled post, he said nothing about how most if not all machines--FPDW and all others included--never even come,close to expectation because of the variety of people playing them.

Better give him another shot at this.

Silly nonsense. I never said anything about coming close the the optimal play ER. The expectation, as I have stated numerous times, is a combination or ER and strategy. Naturally, wheels doesn't even understand the simple terminology used in VP. And he calls himself an expert. Bwah haha haha haha.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks for the response.

I had to chuckle over this:

Remember, the RF only accounts for around 2% of the total return in most games. The rest of the results simply overpower any difference in royals.

During my 170-thousand hand royal flush drought last year, I should have had perhaps four royals. I needed just "two" to have made it a profitable year.

[arcimede$]

During my 170-thousand hand royal flush drought last year, I should have had perhaps four royals. I needed just "two" to have made it a profitable year.

Yup, I've had many years where I was under-royaled and came out ahead. Let's look at a simple example.

If a person is playing with a 1% edge and plays 200K hands they should have 5 royals. Now, if they have only 3 royals that means they did not win 2/5 or 40% of the portion of the overall return attributable to royals. So, subtracting 40% of the 2% (or .8%) from the overall edge still leaves one with a .2% advantage assuming all else is equal. That's why the amount of edge is so important.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yup, I've had many years where I was under-royaled and came out ahead. Let's look at a simple example.

If a person is playing with a 1% edge and plays 200K hands they should have 5 royals. Now, if they have only 3 royals that means they did not win 2/5 or 40% of the portion of the overall return attributable to royals. So, subtracting 40% of the 2% (or .8%) from the overall edge still leaves one with a .2% advantage assuming all else is equal. That's why the amount of edge is so important.

I don't follow you with this: "If a person is playing with a 1% edge and plays 200K hands they should have 5 royals." What does the 1% edge have to do with hitting the royals? You don't need an edge to hit a royal. Every royal I hit in my life I hit on a negative expectation game without any kind of an edge whatsoever. Everything I ever read about hitting royals has to do with luck and playing enough hands.

[Rob.Singer]

And you just caught arci in yet another lie. It never matters what theoretical advantage or disadvantage you're playing with. A royal happens in theory within the same amount of hands no matter what the paytable....or even no matter how many lies a "tested genius" can tell in a single post.

[Alan Mendelson]

I just wonder if perhaps misspoke, and the qualifier "if a person is playing with a 1% edge" was placed there in error?

If I could take the liberty of rewriting Arc's message, it would read like this:

If a person plays 200K hands they should have 5 royals. And if they play those 200K hands with a 1% edge but only get three royals then....

[Rob.Singer]

Anything makes more sense that what he wrote. But good luck with him admitting it

[arcimede$]

I don't follow you with this: "If a person is playing with a 1% edge and plays 200K hands they should have 5 royals." What does the 1% edge have to do with hitting the royals? You don't need an edge to hit a royal. Every royal I hit in my life I hit on a negative expectation game without any kind of an edge whatsoever. Everything I ever read about hitting royals has to do with luck and playing enough hands.

Alan, did you read the rest of the comment? The 1% had nothing to do with the number of royals. I was just setting up the example with as few words as possible. I guess I assume too much intelligence from some folks.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, did you read the rest of the comment? The 1% had nothing to do with the number of royals. I was just setting up the example with as few words as possible. I guess I assume too much intelligence from some folks.

Told'ya!

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, did you read the rest of the comment? The 1% had nothing to do with the number of royals. I was just setting up the example with as few words as possible. I guess I assume too much intelligence from some folks.

Arc, when it comes to communicating ideas, you should be as clear as possible. Your wording was awkward. Not everyone can read your mind, nor is as intelligent as you are. Would you mind rewriting it? Your copy would not make the evening newscast.

[arcimede$]

Alan, there was nothing incorrect in the statement. While the 1% could have been any number the statement is still perfectly correct as it stands. Like I said, all that statement was doing was setting the stage for the example. Yes, it could have been worded better, but that's probably true of lots of stuff I type.

BTW, I don't review my comments as if they were going to be in a book or article. This probably won't be the last time the potential will exist for something to be misread. I apologize in advance.

[Alan Mendelson]

OK Arc, so let me rewrite it for you, and tell me if I am correct in my re-write:

If a person plays 200K hands they should have 5 royals. Now, if they have a 1% edge in their game and make only 3 royals that means they did not win 2/5 or 40% of the portion of the overall return attributable to royals. So, subtracting 40% of the 2% (or .8%) from the overall edge still leaves one with a .2% advantage assuming all else is equal. That's why the amount of edge is so important.

You originally wrote:

"If a person is playing with a 1% edge and plays 200K hands they should have 5 royals. Now, if they have only 3 royals that means they did not win 2/5 or 40% of the portion of the overall return attributable to royals. So, subtracting 40% of the 2% (or .8%) from the overall edge still leaves one with a .2% advantage assuming all else is equal. That's why the amount of edge is so important."

Now, I see another "problem." At first you wrote about a 1% edge, and then you wrote "subtracting 40% of the 2%..." Where did the 2% come from? I'm confused.

[arcimede$]

Now, I see another "problem." At first you wrote about a 1% edge, and then you wrote "subtracting 40% of the 2%..." Where did the 2% come from? I'm confused.

That is the amount of the total return attributable to the RF (as I stated). It's 40% of that 2% that gets subtracted from the 1% edge.

PS. your wording is better than mine.