Oscar's Grind

[Alan Mendelson]

You have to win $300 5 out of every 6 tries just to break even.

If I recall, Arc, you don't have a loss limit or a win goal. You play a pre determined number of hours and you win four out of ten sessions or something like that, is that correct? What's your average session loss and average session win that keeps you profitable so that you could earn $100,000+ over six years?

[arcimede$]

If I recall, Arc, you don't have a loss limit or a win goal. You play a pre determined number of hours and you win four out of ten sessions or something like that, is that correct? What's your average session loss and average session win that keeps you profitable so that you could earn $100,000+ over six years?

First of all your confusing separate items. My wins were over 8 years and came from many games I played in LV (I played in a dozen casinos over the years) as well as my current play and another local casino. Hence, the win percentage of my current game is only part of the story. I don't have a breakdown by casino over the entire 8 years, nor a win percentage for the many games I played.

The win percentage will be due to many factors including the time of sessions. Since I played in multiple casinos in Vegas my session times were less. However, none of that matters. The real issue has to do with the edge I played at. Over time the sessions wins/losses all fade into a single value related to the return of the games.

My point in the referenced quote was that a high win percentage does not necessarily translate into long term success.

[Alan Mendelson]

My wins were over 8 years

My error. Indeed you said six figures of profit in what would be 8 years.

You wrote previously: I won over 6 figures since 2004 when I started keeping good records. I was a quarter player in the beginning and have only played consistently at the dollar level the last 3 years. Not bad for a part timer.

Now, this really makes me wonder how you accomplished this as a quarter player for five of the eight years and what returns you had to average $12,500 per year with five of the eight years at the 25-cent level and only three years at the $1 level?

[arcimede$]

My error. Indeed you said six figures of profit in what would be 8 years.

You wrote previously: I won over 6 figures since 2004 when I started keeping good records. I was a quarter player in the beginning and have only played consistently at the dollar level the last 3 years. Not bad for a part timer.

Now, this really makes me wonder how you accomplished this as a quarter player for five of the eight years and what returns you had to average $12,500 per year with five of the eight years at the 25-cent level and only three years at the $1 level?

I wasn't just a quarter player for 5 years. I played at different levels for much of the 8 years. I played at the .50 level for much of the time at local casinos. I played triple play and 5-play at the .25 and .50 level in LV. I also played some at the dollar level in Vegas, mainly at the Tuscany. However, my biggest edge was a .25 single line play so I did play it quite bit from 2004-2008 when it was removed. Even a quarter game with a 2.5% edge can generate some nice profits (over $20/hour).

[Alan Mendelson]

Even a quarter game with a 2.5% edge can generate some nice profits (over $20/hour).

Could you break down how you got a 2.5% edge? I don't know of any VP game that has a paytable greater than something like 100.17%. Cash back and free play might be 0.5%. That adds up to 100.67 percent. Where is the other 1.83% ??

[arcimede$]

The base game was OEJs at 101.42% at Sam's. The CB was .1% but I played only on 4x, 5x or 6x point days. I also played to maximize my BB at around .6%. I think you can do the math. I also played some quarter 3-play 10-6 DDB progressive that was occasionally even higher than the OEJs.

BTW, there are lots of VP games over 100.17 DB. FPDW is 100.75 (I played at .50 at Skyline) and there another version of deuces that pays 101.6%. They had it at the Orleans for a short while. The game I played at Tuscany was DB+ at 99.8% with 10x points and .7% BB if you played it right. That was my dollar play at 101.5% not including comps which were also in the .7% range and could be used at the gift shop. I bought a couple of nice watches there. I also ate there quite often.

I played .50 SDB 5-play at SouthPoint. That's 99.7% with CB at .9% on 3x days or .6% on 2x days (the only days I played). I believe the BB came in at .6% or thereabouts. They also sent out some nice meal comps at their steakhouse and other restaurants. Not bad for one day a month.

I also played at a few other casinos. Early in my days in Vegas I played FPDW or a 3-play NSUD progressive at Fiesta. They had nice BB and I also won money at their drawing a few times. For about a year they had dollar FPDW at a little backwater casino on Boulder highway.

I think that should clarify things.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I forgot to mention there were many other short term plays that came and went. For example, Arizona Charlies had dollar FPDW for about 3 months before the masses found out. They also had quarter 5-play FPDW for about a week. Binion's had quarter FPDW with a special promotion that gave it a 4% edge for several months. Tuscany had a promotion that was +8-9% depending on the exact game. That one lasted about an hour.

I'm sure there were many other short term plays that I missed. Finding these plays and calculating the return is one of primary skills of a VP APer.

[arcimede$]

If I recall, Arc, you don't have a loss limit or a win goal. You play a pre determined number of hours and you win four out of ten sessions or something like that, is that correct? What's your average session loss and average session win that keeps you profitable so that you could earn $100,000+ over six years?

I've just converted my spreadsheet so now I can answer these questions with more recent information. For this year my average session win is $472 higher than my average session loss. So far this year I have 17 wins and 16 losses. The previous 2 years I won 60 sessions and lost 51. These numbers include freeplay and cashback which is why the win percentage is better than the predicted 45%. All of this play is at my local casinos.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, a smart guy like you should play live poker instead. With your math skills you might actually do what many live poker players can do -- leave with a profit nearly 100% of the time. By a "profit" I don't mean they leave with thousands of dollars each day, but perhaps a couple of hundred each day. In fact, there is one $200 buy in table at Hollywood Park where the same three players sit every day -- and night -- to "earn" their $300 paychecks. Sometimes they get lucky and they earn a little more when some new, loose player comes in and thinks he's going to run over the table.

[arcimede$]

Someday I will need to do something different. No play lasts forever. For now, I'll just milk the one I have.

[redietz]

The appropriate response to Arci's info, in my opinion, is, "Gee, you're right. Playing positive expectation games works!!" Or maybe, "Gee, the math guys are right, and I was wrong!"

But that's just me.

[Alan Mendelson]

The appropriate response to Arci's info, in my opinion, is, "Gee, you're right. Playing positive expectation games works!!" Or maybe, "Gee, the math guys are right, and I was wrong!"

But that's just me.

I'm sorry, but are you saying that you always win at a positive expectation game???

[redietz]

No, I'm saying your responses are consistently inappropriate in that they ignore the content when it strongly undercuts your positions, and your responses deflect forum readers from the reality of gambling probablilities.

Let's try this: If I were a vampire, I'd always win at a positive expectation game.

[Count Room]

Let's try this: If I were a vampire, I'd always win at a positive expectation game.

OK redietz, you've even lost me with this sentence. Does this mean I should order Bloody Mary drinks more often from the cocktail waitress if I'm lucky enough to find a 100%+ machine to sit down and play at?

[Alan Mendelson]

What amazes me is that our "Math friends" keep talking about probabilities but forget that it is still gambling. I think I am being more realistic than Arc or redietz are being. They keep talking about probabilities as if it means guaranteed success, and dismiss the reality that the RNG will not cooperate to give them the "wins" when they need them to stay ahead with their "positive pay tables."

I can understand how people become addicted to video poker following the math, because the math says if you play a positive game you will win over time. Yep, that will really suck in people to cash in their paychecks at the casino and keep slapping those keys.

I am afraid that the math people disregard luck and variance too much. But how can I disagree with Arc who has won more than a hundred thousand dollars over eight years, right Arc?

At least Redietz is offering a qualifier to the claim that playing a positive expectation will make you a winner all the time. He says that fits Vampires only.

[arcimede$]

What amazes me is that our "Math friends" keep talking about probabilities but forget that it is still gambling. I think I am being more realistic than Arc or redietz are being. They keep talking about probabilities as if it means guaranteed success, and dismiss the reality that the RNG will not cooperate to give them the "wins" when they need them to stay ahead with their "positive pay tables."

Pfffft. Where do you get this drivel? This math guy has been talking about bell curves for months. Do you not understand what that means.? Do you choose to ignore it. Why do you make up this nonsense?

Also, why is it you believe the RNG will not cooperate with me but you believe all one needs to do is make up some win/loss goals and the RNG falls right in line providing winners constantly?

I can understand how people become addicted to video poker following the math, because the math says if you play a positive game you will win over time. Yep, that will really suck in people to cash in their paychecks at the casino and keep slapping those keys.

Actually, I think it is almost the opposite of what you said. When people play according to the math they learn to discount a few big hits as just part of the overall return. Since they don't have the ups and downs they are less likely to be addicted.

I am afraid that the math people disregard luck and variance too much. But how can I disagree with Arc who has won more than a hundred thousand dollars over eight years, right Arc?

You seem to do a good job of disagreeing with the "math people" ... who happen to be the very ones that discovered variance. Does it even phase you that EVERY single knowledgeable math person disagrees with you?

[Vegas_lover]

Alan wrote: They keep talking about probabilities as if it means guaranteed success, and dismiss the reality that the RNG will not cooperate to give them the "wins" when they need them to stay ahead with their "positive pay tables."

Alan, it just comes down to recognizing that ending up ahead over time (that means long term) on positive games is more probable than being a loser in the long run.

Alan wrote: I am afraid that the math people disregard luck and variance too much. But how can I disagree with Arc who has won more than a hundred thousand dollars over eight years, right Arc?

Well you seem to believe that Singer did win a million dollars in 10 years playing negative games just as often/easily as positive games. If Singer can do it playing negative games, Arci's claims are very probable winning just over 100.000 in 8 years playing positive games. If you doubt Arci's claims but believe Singer's claims there's something wrong in your way of thinking. The math people do not disregard luck and variance, but over time it has the tendency to even out.

[Alan Mendelson]

Bell curves. Here we go again.

Vegas lover, if Arc won a hundred thousand dollars playing quarters, fifty cents and one dollar games (multi line included) then there should be no question that Singer won a million playing for the most part $10 games.

[Vegas_lover]

Vegas lover, if Arc won a hundred thousand dollars playing quarters, fifty cents and one dollar games (multi line included) then there should be no question that Singer won a million playing for the most part $10 games.

Alan, please tell me you're not that oblivious to all the in debt discussion there already has been about this subject. You do recognize there is a difference between playing negative games and playing positive games exclusively?

Do you believe Singer won that million or not?

[jatki]

Hey, I see you fellows are still into it. So here's some fresh input from a road weary boy who just got a ton of rest.

This argument about who can win what playing plus or minus games, it's easy to dissect when you have no dog in the hunt. Alan's trying to look at the argument objectively. Arc on the other hand has no choice but to claim he has won playing plus games because, isn't that his whole schtick on these forums? Could he survive without saying he's won? What would he have to offer if he didn't have that scenario to repeat everywhere? Did he really win? Who knows because he's an unknown, could have or couldn't have, but don't think for a moment he wouldn't concoct such a story given how many fibs I've seen him tell on various forums, including here.

What about Singer? A million? Same thing, but at least I paid attention to what he showed on video and don't need to lie about the house and apartment he showed, and I have seen his bus of an RV and why would Gaming today publish his wins if it was all a hoax as Arc pretends it is. So the safe bet would be that he has, but again, there is no proof.

I've never seen so much need for reliance that plus games equal winning and minus equals losing. That's just crap all the way. The %'s are way too small to mean anything to anyone who plays any amount of time. I now play for goals myself and on minus games. I mostly win these days because of it, where when I played as long as possible, even though it was mostly on minus games, I lost a lot more than what the %'s say I should. So this argument about what games to play mean what are moot. It only means something to people with agendas. It all comes down to this, people who argue by saying the math means something will always seem to win on paper, but they will lose in casinos if they ever went up against a real minus machine player like Singer. That's why no one ever accepts his challenges, and why they use excuses like saying anyone can win a session or five with a Martingale. Pure chickens, all of them.