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

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you are confusing a betting system with money management. You wrote: "You can't change your future expectation with a betting system."

Money management is not a betting system.... unless of course you want to define it as such.

I think of money management as a tool to limit your losses and to let your profits run, just like investment pros do in the world of stocks, and as businessmen do when they start businesses -- letting the strong ones continue and shutting the losers.

Your other comments just show you are at a loss for words and for reasoning. You are standing your ground, Arc, and your feet are firmly planted in quicksand.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you are confusing a betting system with money management. You wrote: "You can't change your future expectation with a betting system."

Money management is not a betting system.... unless of course you want to define it as such.

A betting system is anything that affects your next bet. Hence, win goals and loss limits are both part of a betting system. They may not as complex as some others but they still meet the definition.

I think of money management as a tool to limit your losses and to let your profits run, just like investment pros do in the world of stocks, and as businessmen do when they start businesses -- letting the strong ones continue and shutting the losers.

Those are not defined by random events and hence are not applicable to VP.

Your other comments just show you are at a loss for words and for reasoning. You are standing your ground, Arc, and your feet are firmly planted in quicksand.

Yes, that quicksand is known at simple math. Have you tried taking your ideas to any university and checking with the math dept.? No? What are you waiting for? Wouldn't a good reporter want to get this information?

Alan, I can only laugh at your denial of obvious facts. The math is the math. You can't make the RNG give you good hands. Over time you will see the same random distribution of cards as any other player. Hence, you will see the same results within well known margins of error. You are not just being stubborn you are being stupid by claiming that somehow you can force better hands to show up for you. Sorry if you don't like being called stupid. But stupid is as stupid does, and you are doing it in spades.

Ask yourself why you keep ignoring my questions? I know the reason, do you?

[Rob.Singer]

did you reverse those in error?

Yes, thanks for catching it.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, he will always answer your questions about how easy it is to win today, by only talking how you will lose playing the game into infinity because the math books say so. That's why he doesn't want to hear of my winning--now, both past AND since I moved to Nv.--and why he reflects all your sensible points and questions into the same broken, insupportable record.

Ha! If those oej games are removed, he'll STILL play (Deleted). I can see it now and mark my words: he'll just come up with the same rationales Dancer did (which was no rationale) when he said he'd quit playing the day game EV + cash back did not equal 100% any longer--and in Dancer's own words, NO EXCEPTIONS. Remember, (Deleted).

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, what amazes me is he keeps saying "the math is the math." And yes, we both know "the math is the math." But all we are saying is how you play helps to determine if you win or not. The math will always be the math. If you know to quit when ahead, it doesn't matter if the math says you should lose. The fact is you quit when you're ahead.

He keeps telling us that the math will jump up and steal the money out of our pockets.

[arcimede$]

Rob, what amazes me is he keeps saying "the math is the math." And yes, we both know "the math is the math." But all we are saying is how you play helps to determine if you win or not. The math will always be the math. If you know to quit when ahead, it doesn't matter if the math says you should lose. The fact is you quit when you're ahead.

He keeps telling us that the math will jump up and steal the money out of our pockets.

No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand?

[arcimede$]

I can see it now. The casinos will all go out of business. By using the brand new "take a leak" system you too can become rich.

All you have to do is set a win goal and loss limit. As soon as you reach one you get up from your machine and "take a leak". Then, simply walk up to another machine and start all over again. You can do this 10 or 20 times a day and reap the rewards faster than you ever thought possible. The RNG won't know who you are so you are assured of winning by none other than Alan Mendelson.

PS. Make sure to drink lots of your favorite beverage.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you wrote: No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand?

Arc, how can you make such a claim? Do you sit and watch every video poker player? Do you know if every video poker has a policy to quit when ahead? Do you deny the research that says most gamblers are ahead during their visit but nearly all will leave with a loss?

Your statement No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand? is based only on your devotion to something that tells you that playing a negative expectation games dooms you to losing over the long term, without considering other factors of play. You ignore what I described before as the "human element" of playing.

This is why you would fail as a live poker player. You cannot factor anything but "math" and cannot read, judge, bluff, prod, bargain, or use many of the other "non math" skills in the game.

Stick with video poker, you'd be outplayed every time at real poker.

[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

[redietz]

I'm going to simply repeat what Arci asked: "Why hasn't Alan, in journalist mode, gone to a university and asked people with doctorates in math to settle the debate?"

This seems like a simple solution to the whole feud. If mathematicians agree with Alan, then Alan is correct. If they agree with Rob, Rob is correct. If they agree with Arci, Arci is correct.

Why wouldn't you ask math experts a math question?

[Rob.Singer]

No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand?

It is when it's a totally false statement.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm going to simply repeat what Arci asked: "Why hasn't Alan, in journalist mode, gone to a university and asked people with doctorates in math to settle the debate?"

This seems like a simple solution to the whole feud. If mathematicians agree with Alan, then Alan is correct. If they agree with Rob, Rob is correct. If they agree with Arci, Arci is correct.

Why wouldn't you ask math experts a math question?

You would, but video poker is a game that only has a BASIS in math; it is not totally engulfed in it like 2+2 equals 4 is. It is a game that is surrounded by theory, and played by humans whose decision-making can render those theories useless. And only a fool would believe that is a one way street.

Like Alan said, it's as if arci's saying the math is gonna jump up and steal your money if you go against it. Classic.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you wrote: No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand?

Arc, how can you make such a claim?

Because it's true.

Do you sit and watch every video poker player? Do you know if every video poker has a policy to quit when ahead? Do you deny the research that says most gamblers are ahead during their visit but nearly all will leave with a loss?

All that means is they have have got ahead by a measly 5 credits. Is your win goal 5 credits? And, the higher your win goal the less likely it is you will get above that level. Even on positive return games there will be times that a player never gets ahead even 5 credits.

Your statement No, I'm telling you you won't always be ahead. Is that really too tough for you to understand? is based only on your devotion to something that tells you that playing a negative expectation games dooms you to losing over the long term, without considering other factors of play. You ignore what I described before as the "human element" of playing.

The "human element" is an illusion. There is one human element for sure. That is a devotion to silly nonsense.

This is why you would fail as a live poker player. You cannot factor anything but "math" and cannot read, judge, bluff, prod, bargain, or use many of the other "non math" skills in the game.

Stick with video poker, you'd be outplayed every time at real poker.

So, how does bluffing a VP machine work? How about prodding? Bargaining? Yeah, right ... what do you use for trade? All those "non math" things you mentioned are nothing but fairy tales in your mind. All the VP machine does is generate the next cards when you press a button. It's really quite simple. Over time the frequency of the various cards evens out just like coin flips even out. You've refused to answer my questions on coin flips because you know the answer, but you don't want to admit the same conditions apply to VP. You want to believe you can get more of the cards that give you winning results. Well, you can over the short periods of time, but over the long haul it evens out. When it does, your results will also even out. You can't make an RNG give you better cards than it gives other people.

[arcimede$]

You would, but video poker is a game that only has a BASIS in math; it is not totally engulfed in it like 2+2 equals 4 is. It is a game that is surrounded by theory, and played by humans whose decision-making can render those theories useless. And only a fool would believe that is a one way street.

Total nonsense.

Like Alan said, it's as if arci's saying the math is gonna jump up and steal your money if you go against it. Classic.

Nope, it just eats away at it slowly over time if you play negative machines.

[arcimede$]

Alan, let's get back to your question about investing. Do you believe every stock always goes up when you buy it? Why would you believe every VP machine will always go up in credits?

A positive VP machine is like a stock that is undervalued. You buy the stock because you expect it to rise. If you've done good research the ER is over 100%. However, what about stocks that you research and think will go down? They are like a negative VP machine. The ER is under 100% and the expectation is you will lose money. So, would you buy one of those stocks? By your logic it would seem all you need to do is set a "goal" and sell when it reaches that goal or a loss limit. If it reaches the loss limit you sell, then you go back the next day and do it again. Is that how you invest your money?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I can't believe you and redietz don't understand what I am saying or what Rob is saying. But I will try to break it down based on what you both have said. You both have said it is possible to win a session playing negative expectation games. Yet, for some reason, you think that even if you happen to win one session, or two sessions, or ten sessions that it is impossible to be an overall winner.

You make that statement based on one thing and one thing only: the pay tables of a machine.

What Rob has pointed out, and what I agree with, is that the pay table of a game/machine is only part of what makes for a winning session or a winning career at video poker. Certainly someone making the wrong holds playing a positive expectation game could lose. You won't disagree with that, will you? And so if making the wrong holds on a positive expectation game won't make you a winner doesn't it make sense that there is more to winning than playing on a positive expectation game?

So now we know that the player is a critical factor for winning. We also know that the pay table is important. But how much difference is there between a negative expectation game and a positive game? Is it one-half of one percent? Is it seven tenths of one percent?

Since we know that the player is a critical factor for winning, couldn't the player's own decision making overcome that one-half of one percent or 7-tenths of one percent gap between a negative expectation game and a positive expectation game?

There are various factors that create a winning session in video poker including the amount of time spent playing, whether a player hits big hands, whether a player decides to move to a lower denomination to conserve his recent wins, whether a player stops playing the session because he doesn't want to risk giving back his wins or losing more, and so on.

Both Arc and redietz have maintained that it is the negative pay table that prohibits a player from winning but they fail to account for those who lose on a positive pay table because they ignore the human factor.

Rob knows this and I know this -- the human factor can overcome the tiny gap between positive and negative video poker games.

Now what about going to a math expert? What is the math expert going to say? Well, he's going to say that negative pay tables will return less money over the long run, while positive pay tables will return more money over the long run. But how will the math expert approach the issues of a poor player on a positive expectation machine, and a good player on a negative expectation machine?

Rob doesn't dispute the math, nor do I. But the human decisions can violate the expected return of the math to the good (positively) and to the bad (negatively).

And it is the human factor which can make someone win on a negative expectation machine. Now if you want to keep your blinders on and only consider the math, then yes, the math says you will lose on a negative expectation game. But the machine does not play us -- we play the machine. It is our decisions about the play that will affect the "expected return."

[arcimede$]

Arc, I can't believe you and redietz don't understand what I am saying or what Rob is saying. But I will try to break it down based on what you both have said. You both have said it is possible to win a session playing negative expectation games. Yet, for some reason, you think that even if you happen to win one session, or two sessions, or ten sessions that it is impossible to be an overall winner.

No, not impossible ... just highly improbable on negative return games. And, the more negative the more improbable.

You make that statement based on one thing and one thing only: the pay tables of a machine.

Yes, because that is what determines the return of a game. Let me ask you Alan. Do you think you could win on a game with an ER of .5?

What Rob has pointed out, and what I agree with, is that the pay table of a game/machine is only part of what makes for a winning session or a winning career at video poker. Certainly someone making the wrong holds playing a positive expectation game could lose. You won't disagree with that, will you? And so if making the wrong holds on a positive expectation game won't make you a winner doesn't it make sense that there is more to winning than playing on a positive expectation game?

What making wrong holds does is change the return from positive to negative. The more negative a game the more you will lose over time.

So now we know that the player is a critical factor for winning. We also know that the pay table is important. But how much difference is there between a negative expectation game and a positive game? Is it one-half of one percent? Is it seven tenths of one percent?

Since we know that the player is a critical factor for winning, couldn't the player's own decision making overcome that one-half of one percent or 7-tenths of one percent gap between a negative expectation game and a positive expectation game?

Remember that the ER of a game is the optimal return. Hence, the only thing a player's decisions can do is lower the return of a game. This is true on all games and why I've always emphasized the amount of edge as being extremely important.

There are various factors that create a winning session in video poker including the amount of time spent playing, whether a player hits big hands, whether a player decides to move to a lower denomination to conserve his recent wins, whether a player stops playing the session because he doesn't want to risk giving back his wins or losing more, and so on.

Those things affect the total money won or lost, not the return per bet. Obviously, if you bet less and have a 95% return you will lose less, but this does mean you've changed the return of a game.

Both Arc and redietz have maintained that it is the negative pay table that prohibits a player from winning but they fail to account for those who lose on a positive pay table because they ignore the human factor.

Rob knows this and I know this -- the human factor can overcome the tiny gap between positive and negative video poker games.

Alan, a VP session is comprised of a number of hands. Your result in any session is simply the sum of those individual hands. If you quit and come back another time you start another string of individual hands. The time you were gone is meaningless which is why I brought up the "take a leak" system. It is beyond silly to think some magic happens between the last hand of one session and the first hand of your next session. The bottom line is you still end up adding all your individual hand results to get your current overall won/lost position.

So, where does the "human element" come in? You could get up and twirl around between each hand as well. That would change your next hand because you would be hitting deal at a different time. And, it would also change all the hands that come after that since you are now on a different timing schedule. In other words, it does exactly the same thing as going home and returning at another time. The key thing to understand is that even though you are on a different timing, the hands you can expect in the future are no different. Every hand still has the exact same expected return and sum of the results of those hands will still converge on the expected return of the game+strategy you play.

Now what about going to a math expert? What is the math expert going to say? Well, he's going to say that negative pay tables will return less money over the long run, while positive pay tables will return more money over the long run. But how will the math expert approach the issues of a poor player on a positive expectation machine, and a good player on a negative expectation machine?

By saying exactly what I have told you. The returns of the players will be a combination of the game+strategy. A poor strategy will lower the effective ER of a poor player on a positive machine. A player playing perfectly on a negative machine may do better than that player but cannot do any better than the optimal ER of his machine. That optimal ER is we refer to when we discuss the ER of a game.

Rob doesn't dispute the math, nor do I. But the human decisions can violate the expected return of the math to the good (positively) and to the bad (negatively).

Alan, only to a point as I just mentioned. You can't get blood out of a turnip if there is none there. You cannot increase the ER of a game beyond the optimal value. You are claiming the equivalent of flipping a coin 5 times and getting 6 heads. What part of maximum don't you understand?

And it is the human factor which can make someone win on a negative expectation machine. Now if you want to keep your blinders on and only consider the math, then yes, the math says you will lose on a negative expectation game. But the machine does not play us -- we play the machine. It is our decisions about the play that will affect the "expected return."

Only up to the optimal return. To get above the optimal return you would have to be dealt cards that allow you to get better results. This does happen over short periods of time which is why you can win individual sessions. However, with randomness there is no way for you to MAKE the machine deal you more 3oaks, more 2 pairs, more 4rf, etc. So, you will have good streaks and bad streaks and slowly but surely converge on the average. Those breaks you take when you reach a win goal are no different than taking a leak or twirling around. It does not change the future frequency of cards and hence sets a personal ER that is equal to less than the optimal ER.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, are you grasping at straws? There are no video poker games with an expected return of 0.5. Would I expect to win? You might also ask if you thought I might expect to live going over Niagara Falls wearing boxer shorts.

You also wrote: "What making wrong holds does is change the return from positive to negative." Gee Arc, what are you talking about? The expected return or the actual return? The expected return as you point out is based on optimal holds. So you must be talking about the actual return. Well, Arc, that's what I've been talking about -- the actual return. And the way you play can change the actual return. You might even be able to change a negative expected return to a positive actual return if you do something that "isn't optimal." That would mean "breaking the rules" of play. Doesn't Rob do this in some of his special plays?

I'm tired of discussing this with you. Do stand your ground, even if your feet are firmly planted in quicksand. There is more to playing video poker than just the pay table. Just as there is more to playing live poker than knowing that AA should beat 22. You see Arc, 22 can beat AA -- I saw it happen last night when a third deuce flopped.

[slingshot]

Math cannot predict randomness, virtual or real.