Of Math and Men

[arcimede$]

Arc: you wrote: "What Singer states is his betting system can lead to an actual return > optimal return. Sorry, that is not possible as the math clearly shows."

I really don't understand how you can say this? So I am going to give you an example that you will love. It involves a coin toss. And the coin is weighted so that heads shows up more than tails. The "math" will tell you that any fair coin will have flip results that are 50/50 heads and tails. But remember that Singer says there are patterns? He says that machines are not random and you can use this "non randomness" to help you, and he has seen that aces appear when he holds just one? Believe it or not, this is the foundation of his special plays, and it all comes from his experience. Again, it goes beyond the math of the game.

Alan, if a game is not random then the math does not apply. The math is based on random events. One either accepts the games are random or not.

Now, some of you are saying "well that's just crazy, Alan." So, let me give you another example in the casino which many, many people will agree with. You are at a craps table and the "math" tells you to bet the pass line or don's pass with odds. That's what the math says. But "Practice Johnny" is the shooter and suddenly all of the players are betting the horn -- 2, 3, 11 and 12 which are hard to hit, and high paying one-roll bets. If you follow the math you never bet the horn numbers. But "Practice Johnny" is able to influence the dice and he can hit the horn numbers more often than the math says he will.

Look at Singer's system the same way as betting on "Practice Johnny" in craps.

If a person could influence the dice then the game would not be random and once again the math would not apply. This is well understood. Why are you going off into la-la land?

Now, getting back to your statement, Arc. What Singer states is his betting system can lead to an actual return > optimal return. Sorry, that is not possible as the math clearly shows. OK. The math says what the math says. And if you're at the craps game the math says you will lose betting on "Practice Johnny." But when all is said and done, those betting on "Practice Johnny" will have an actual return > optimal return even though the math says that is not possible.

No, the math does not say it is impossible. The math no longer applies.

Again Arc, you have to realize that "expected return" is just an "expected return." Actual is actual.

To put it another way: yeah, the math says this should happen, but when you change conditions something different actually happens.

And getting back to Singer: this is why while I don't believe in non random VP games existing, and why I have full faith in the integrity of the game, I am open to anyone showing me proof that the RNGs are not truly random. This is why I would welcome an independent third party investigation of the VP industry.

It's good to hear you believe the games are random, but don't you see your problem? You tried to claim that Singer could possibly win assuming the games are not random and then you state you believe the games are random. You need to decide what you want to believe, random or not, and base your positions on that belief.

Just as I say show me the research to support your bell curve, I've also asked that Singer show me the proof that the games are not random which actually has a basis for some of his strategy.

And let me also say that special plays are not all of his strategy. He openly says his money management system gets the lion share of his success. And I think all of us can understand this: it's not really how much you win, but how much you don't lose back.

Money management cannot change the return. You can't improve on the optimal expected return with a betting system. These are mathematical facts if VP is random. You need to quit living in a fantasy world and get back to reality.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I've decided that we are speaking different languages. But I am going to try one more time. You are correct when you say "money management cannot change the return." I agree with you. But money management can help you beat the casino by keeping the winnings in your pocket. Try to understand that.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I've decided that we are speaking different languages. But I am going to try one more time. You are correct when you say "money management cannot change the return." I agree with you. But money management can help you beat the casino by keeping the winnings in your pocket. Try to understand that.

Right Alan and 2+2 =7 because you want it to.

[Vegas_lover]

Arc, I've decided that we are speaking different languages. But I am going to try one more time. You are correct when you say "money management cannot change the return." I agree with you. But money management can help you beat the casino by keeping the winnings in your pocket. Try to understand that.

Which doesn't mean one iota if that winning session wasn't the last time you entered a casino. Next session you could loose and the next one, and the next one, and the next one........As long as you keep playing negative games, eventually you will loose the money you won before.

[Alan Mendelson]

Which doesn't mean one iota if that winning session wasn't the last time you entered a casino. Next session you could loose and the next one, and the next one, and the next one........As long as you keep playing negative games, eventually you will loose the money you won before.

Didn't you just write that it is possible to win at negative expectation games? Now you say you are destined to lose? Which is it? Can you win or not?

[Vegas_lover]

Didn't you just write that it is possible to win at negative expectation games? Now you say you are destined to lose? Which is it? Can you win or not?

Don't be stupid Alan. Nobody ever disputed you can't win on a negative game, even Arci never did. Put in a Benjamin, cash out a couple hundred plus after an hour because you got a couple of good hands. BUT playing multiple sessions a day/week/month/year on a negative game guarantees you will loose the money you won in that winning session I just mentioned. This is no rocket science so don't act like you're ignorant when you're not. That's the thing that's annoying! The games are negative because chances you'll loose are bigger........I reallly don't get why this is so difficult to understand. No betting system will change the fact that the game is negative. So, if somebody wins a large amount over time playing negative games, in my opinion, it has nothing to do with the betting system. The person is just the luckiest bastard alive LOL.

[Alan Mendelson]

Don't be stupid Alan. Nobody ever disputed you can't win on a negative game, even Arci never did. Put in a Benjamin, cash out a couple hundred plus after an hour because you got a couple of good hands. BUT playing multiple sessions a day/week/month/year on a negative game guarantees you will loose the money you won in that winning session I just mentioned. This is no rocket science so don't act like you're ignorant when you're not. That's the thing that's annoying! The games are negative because chances you'll loose are bigger........I reallly don't get why this is so difficult to understand. No betting system will change the fact that the game is negative. So, if somebody wins a large amount over time playing negative games, in my opinion, it has nothing to do with the betting system. The person is just the luckiest bastard alive LOL.

So again my question: Can you make short term wins at a negative expectation game and cash out those wins, and over time bank the short term wins so that you have a profit over the long term?

[arcimede$]

So again my question: Can you make short term wins at a negative expectation game and cash out those wins, and over time bank the short term wins so that you have a profit over the long term?

Except for the small problem that you won't win every time. Quite often you will reach your loss limit. Over time the frequency of your hands will match the frequency expected from a random deal. And, that frequency is what leads to the expected return. Bottom line .... there is no free lunch.

[Alan Mendelson]

Except for the small problem that you won't win every time. Quite often you will reach your loss limit. Over time the frequency of your hands will match the frequency expected from a random deal. And, that frequency is what leads to the expected return. Bottom line .... there is no free lunch.

Thanks Arc, here's a followup question: What if you decide to have tight loss stops? Can your accumulated wins total more than the total of your tight loss stops? And again, what percentage of winning sessions do you have? Is it 30 percent?

[arcimede$]

Thanks Arc, here's a followup question: What if you decide to have tight loss stops? Can your accumulated wins total more than the total of your tight loss stops? And again, what percentage of winning sessions do you have? Is it 30 percent?

Alan, you have to think of the big picture. No matter when you start or quit you will get dealt random cards at the same frequencies. You won't get dealt two-pair or 3oak or any of the better hands any more often just because you choose a time to quit. As a result you will see the same choices that anyone else sees and you will receive the same frequency of hits on the draw. Over time these will average out just like anyone else.

In order for you to do better than the optimal return you need to get a higher frequency of good deals or good draws. However, there's nothing that makes that happen. Every hand is independent. For example, think about tossing a fair coin. Do you think there's any way for you to assure more than 50% heads? Does it matter when you toss the coin? If you get a few heads up will it matter if you stop then and start again the next day?

PS. I win around 45% of my sessions. I could increase that number with small win goals and big loss limits but it would not affect my overall results. I would just lose more money when I do lose to make up for the higher number of wins. This is similar to how Singer's system works. Yes, you win more sessions but the big losses bring you back to normal expectation.

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay, so you win 45% of sessions. What if someone decided to win smaller amounts and increase their win rate to 100%. In other words, they decide to grind out a small win every day. It's what I do when I play cash games at poker. Just came back with a $301 win, not as good as yesterday's net win of $600 (which included the big $800 pot), and the day before, alas, it was only a net win of $3 (three dollars).

I think the key here is not how much I actually won, but how much I didn't lose. Why do I say that?

Because when I got to the table this evening the player to my right at this $200 buy-in table had a stack of $1600+. That's right -- sixteen hundred. He left a few minutes before I did. Busted. It's funny (not) but money management is really crucial to all gambling.

[Vegas_lover]

Okay, so you win 45% of sessions. What if someone decided to win smaller amounts and increase their win rate to 100%. In other words, they decide to grind out a small win every day. It's what I do when I play cash games at poker. Just came back with a $301 win, not as good as yesterday's net win of $600 (which included the big $800 pot), and the day before, alas, it was only a net win of $3 (three dollars).

I think the key here is not how much I actually won, but how much I didn't lose. Why do I say that?

Because when I got to the table this evening the player to my right at this $200 buy-in table had a stack of $1600+. That's right -- sixteen hundred. He left a few minutes before I did. Busted. It's funny (not) but money management is really crucial to all gambling.

Money management IS important in gambling but it doesn't change the return of the game. Bringing "small" wins home from a live poker game is a lot easier than bringing these wins home from a negative expectation VP machine. In contrary to Arci, I do agree with you that live poker requires more skill than VP. AND if you're a more skilled player than the other players at the table it would be relatively easy to bring home small wins almost daily. But even as a skilled player, you will have loosing session. You can't outplay of outsmart a VP machine. There's no bluffing and there's no reading of other players. Therefor I believe it is easier to do in live poker than in VP. Heck, I have a couple of friends out in Vegas who do this 6 days a week.

[Alan Mendelson]

I understand what you're saying Vegas_lover, but here we have Arc who says he wins 45% of his sessions yet manages a six-figure profit over six years (did I get that correctly?) playing 25-cent and $1 VP. So we are led to believe that his 45% session wins on a positive expectation game (one eyed jacks) offsets the 55% of losing sessions.

My first question is why doesn't he have more winning sessions on his positive expectation machine?
My second question is how tight is he on his losing sessions so that 45% of wins offsets the 55% of losses?

[Vegas_lover]

Well, I'll leave answering those questions to Arci haha. I have no idea what game he plays, how many hands per session or how many time per session, etc. A six-figure profit over six years at that level is very well possible when playing a positive expectation game. If he claims to have a six figure profit every year playing that level than I would doubt that to be true.

[Alan Mendelson]

I am sure he means that he has a total win of six-figures, and not a yearly win of six-figures. I accepted that amount because it supports Singer's claim of winning nearly one million over ten years playing denominations of up to $25/coin.

I look forward to Arc's commenting on the rest.

[arcimede$]

I understand what you're saying Vegas_lover, but here we have Arc who says he wins 45% of his sessions yet manages a six-figure profit over six years (did I get that correctly?) playing 25-cent and $1 VP. So we are led to believe that his 45% session wins on a positive expectation game (one eyed jacks) offsets the 55% of losing sessions.

Of course, all that's required is for the average session win to more than 10% higher than the average loss.

My first question is why doesn't he have more winning sessions on his positive expectation machine?

I do. If I was playing the 98% version of OEJs I would not win 45% of the time. My wins would also be smaller and my losses larger.

My second question is how tight is he on his losing sessions so that 45% of wins offsets the 55% of losses?

Not sure what you mean by "tight"? I play exactly the same win or lose. It's like my answer on the other thread. Some days luck is on your side, other days it isn't. Over time, the fact the game is positive leads to net wins.

[Alan Mendelson]

This is very interesting Arc. You wrote: "I play exactly the same win or lose... Some days luck is on your side, other days it isn't." That's almost like what Rob Singer says when he keeps playing to the point of a $35,000 loss because his "system" tells him to keep plugging away because he knows he will win in the end.

[Vegas_lover]

This is very interesting Arc. You wrote: "I play exactly the same win or lose... Some days luck is on your side, other days it isn't." That's almost like what Rob Singer says when he keeps playing to the point of a $35,000 loss because his "system" tells him to keep plugging away because he knows he will win in the end.

This is absolutely NOT what Singer is saying. Singer is saying he won a million dollars in 10 years and that it's a result of his system. His system completely depends on luck and when it doesn't matter to play positive or negative vp games that really means he is the luckiest man on earth. Arci just said that SOME days luck is on his side. Singers says luck was on his side consistantly for 10 years. Do you see the difference?

[Alan Mendelson]

When I asked Singer about his $35,000 loss he answered with this comment: "I really think you just don't comprehend how the strategy is played. I see you're believing since this is a simple "chase your losses" strategy then why quit down $35k when there's thousands more in my pocket left to bet?"

That sounds a lot like Arc's comment: "I play exactly the same win or lose... Some days luck is on your side, other days it isn't."

Why do they strike me as being the same? Because you have two guys willing to keep plugging money into a machine because they both think they will win in the end.

[Vegas_lover]

When I asked Singer about his $35,000 loss he answered with this comment: "I really think you just don't comprehend how the strategy is played. I see you're believing since this is a simple "chase your losses" strategy then why quit down $35k when there's thousands more in my pocket left to bet?"

That sounds a lot like Arc's comment: "I play exactly the same win or lose... Some days luck is on your side, other days it isn't."

Why do they strike me as being the same? Because you have two guys willing to keep plugging money into a machine because they both think they will win in the end.

They don't sound like the same thing to me AT ALL. Arci's play is very different from Singer's play and that's the reason these statements mean something completely different.