Putting your faith in "the math." Really???

[Alan Mendelson]

I have to wonder how you could really put your faith into "the math" when playing video poker. There is nothing exact about the math. Sure, 2 + 2 exactly equals 4, and when dealt four to the royal you have exactly 1/47 chances of drawing the fifth royal card in a 52-card game.

But that's about where the "excactness" ends.

Consider John Grochowski's latest column from Aug 16, 2012: http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.com/

And this line in particular: "Given expert play in 9-6 Jacks or Better, royals occur an average of once per 40,391 hands. For your amount of play, the average expectation is two royals, but it’s within normal probability to draw one or none, just as it’s within normal probability to draw three, four or even more."

That's a darn big spread when you think about it. So maybe doing something besides what the "math" says to do isn't too bad?

Classic case: you are dealt a flush with four to the royal. I know, I know. We sacrifice the dealt flush to try for the royal. But maybe a flush in the hand is worth more than a royal in the bush?

[Rob.Singer]

This is precisely why my play strategy was developed. It, being only a short-term strategy, improves game er and thus, gives the player a far better opportunity to get ahead in a session by their pre determined goal. But it only means something if they're discipline also, and a good amount of it.

[antfanas]

Classic case: you are dealt a flush with four to the royal. I know, I know. We sacrifice the dealt flush to try for the royal. But maybe a flush in the hand is worth more than a royal in the bush?

I was playing Mr Singer's RTT method and had progressed to .50 BP machine and was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k

[Vegas Vic]

I was playing Mr Singer's RTT method and had progressed to .50 BP machine and was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k

It doesn't matter what kind of system you were playing when you were dealt the foyal and then hit the royal. The "system" did not give you the foyal and the "system" did not fill the hand for a royal. Suggesting that the "system" was responsible for your 2K is as silly as saying you got it because you were drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi when you hit.

[antfanas]

It doesn't matter what kind of system you were playing when you were dealt the foyal and then hit the royal. The "system" did not give you the foyal and the "system" did not fill the hand for a royal. Suggesting that the "system" was responsible for your 2K is as silly as saying you got it because you were drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi when you hit.

I did not say that I hit the RF because of the "system" I was responding to Allan's comment about holding the flush in the hand instead of the Rf in the bush.It appears that anytime a Singer System is even mentioned, even if it has nothing to do with the results, his detractors swarm in like vultures to tear it apart.

[Alan Mendelson]

it appears that anytime a singer system is even mentioned, even if it has nothing to do with the results, his detractors swarm in like vultures to tear it apart.

bonus award for expert commentary

[Vegas Vic]

I was playing Mr Singer's RTT method and had progressed to .50 BP machine and was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k

It doesn't matter what kind of system you were playing when you were dealt the foyal and then hit the royal. The "system" did not give you the foyal and the "system" did not fill the hand for a royal. Suggesting that the "system" was responsible for your 2K is as silly as saying you got it because you were drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi when you hit.

I did not say that I hit the RF because of the "system" I was responding to Allan's comment about holding the flush in the hand instead of the Rf in the bush.It appears that anytime a Singer System is even mentioned, even if it has nothing to do with the results, his detractors swarm in like vultures to tear it apart.

If your intention was to merely respond to Alan's comment, you could have simply said "I was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k." You must have felt it was important and vital to include you were playing Singer's system and by doing so, you opened yourself up to scrutiny involving that system. Besides, my analogy was completely accurate when it comes to correlating end results to any "system". Sorry that I hurt your feelings. Singer disciples appear to be overly sensitive for some reason.

[antfanas]

If your intention was to merely respond to Alan's comment, you could have simply said "I was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k."

Sorry,I will send my comments through you first before posting so that you can correct them.

[antfanas]

You must have felt it was important and vital to include you were playing Singer's system.

How could you know how I feel? Do you know what system is that I mentioned? If you know what the system is do you know how it is played and have you tried it?

[antfanas]

by doing so, you opened yourself up to scrutiny.

By who? I thought that this was an open forum to discuss VP.Non posters see this will never write anything for fear of being scrutinized.

[antfanas]

Besides, my analogy was completely accurate when it comes to correlating end results to any "system".

the results were do to a "math" play the system had nothing to do with it.

[antfanas]

Singer disciples appear to be overly sensitive for some reason.

Singer non-disciples appear to be closed minded and in-sensitive.

[antfanas]

Sorry that I hurt your feelings.

All that aside,I truly believe that you are a gentleman.

[arcimede$]

The problem with your logic Alan is there is no method of play that will make a difference. The odds of hitting a RF is still 1/47 no matter what you do. The odds of hitting a flush is also the same. So, the big question is why would you want to use an approach that reduces your expected return when you can't count on that approach providing any advantage. That is the key and you, Singer and anyone else promoting alternate play strategies have no answer to it.

BTW Alan, you keep saying Singer does not claim he can overcome the math. Yet, this is about 3 times in the last few days he has done exactly that. What do you think he means when he says "improves game er"? He is clearly claiming he can beat the math with his system (which is what he has always said).

I have given you a mathematical proof that shows that is impossible. Now we really see what's happening. You don't care about facts or the truth. You clearly want to support this silly nonsense for some other reason.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, what is your definition for "overcome the math"? Is it that he can do better than what the math says he will do playing a particular VP game? Yes, that's what he says and that's what we all want to do.

Does he say he can beat the math return on a game? Yes he says that, and we all want to do that.

Does he dispute the math? No he does not.

When I play 8/5 Bonus I am playing a game that says I should lose... by the math. So I want to play that game and leave it ahead, and overcome, beat, and do better than the math. Do you have a problem with that?

[arcimede$]

Arc, what is your definition for "overcome the math"? Is it that he can do better than what the math says he will do playing a particular VP game? Yes, that's what he says and that's what we all want to do.

Does he say he can beat the math return on a game? Yes he says that, and we all want to do that.

Does he dispute the math? No he does not.

Of course it does. You can't beat the expected return of game. Period. On any given day your actual return may be better but that is not the issue.

[redietz]

Alan, if you were playing head to head video poker for 100K hands, comparing your wins or losses to one other person's, and you got first choice as to Arci's style or Rob's style, with your opponent taking whichever style you did not take, and 100K were to go to the person with the better result, which style would you choose?

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if you were playing head to head video poker for 100K hands, comparing your wins or losses to one other person's, and you got first choice as to Arci's style or Rob's style, with your opponent taking whichever style you did not take, and 100K were to go to the person with the better result, which style would you choose?

According to the math, the person playing the better paying game will win. So what if Rob or anyone else gets lucky? That doesn't mean the math is wrong. It only means that their actual return beat the expected return.

Is it so difficult to accept that some people can "get lucky" and beat the expected return? You guys amaze me.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, how many times do we have to discuss "expected return" vs "actual return."

If you concede that someone can have one winning session on a negative expectation game, why can't they have more? Why can't their wins on a negative expectation game add up to more than their losses? Does the RNG have a memory that says... "oh, here's Rob Singer. We let him win twice before but we're going to zing him on his next ten sessions." Is that what's going on?

Why don't you just call it quits and say there is a difference between expected return and actual return, and some players might have an actual return that beats the expected return? That's all. Instead of going through life with your mathematical blinders on.

You can't beat the expected return of game. Period. On any given day your actual return may be better but that is not the issue.

Make up your mind Arc. If your actual return on any given day may be better why can't it be better overall?

[arcimede$]

Arc, how many times do we have to discuss "expected return" vs "actual return."

it appears it does not matter. You ignore the facts.

If you concede that someone can have one winning session on a negative expectation game, why can't they have more? Why can't their wins on a negative expectation game add up to more than their losses? Does the RNG have a memory that says... "oh, here's Rob Singer. We let him win twice before but we're going to zing him on his next ten sessions." Is that what's going on?

Why doesn't one place in the country get all the rain while other places are completely dry? That's what you want to happen Alan. You simply can't force good cards to be dealt. You are going to get a variety of cards and the betting system you use has nothing to do with it. Your results will be determined by the frequencies of the various cards. Just like the rain, you can't make the aces show up. You can't will a RF to happen. The only thing you control is the ability to select the cards that give you the best chance at success.

Why don't you just call it quits and say there is a difference between expected return and actual return, and some players might have an actual return that beats the expected return? That's all. Instead of going through life with your mathematical blinders on.

I've already said exactly that many times. I call it a bell curve. However, you can't make yourself end up on the right side of the curve other than make the best holds possible. Try flipping a coin and see if you can force heads to show up more than tails. That is what you are claiming can be done.

Make up your mind Arc. If your actual return on any given day may be better why can't it be better overall?

The same reason you can't force more heads than tails. It's called randomness.