Oscar's Grind

[Alan Mendelson]

Do you believe Singer won that million or not?

I have no reason to doubt him. Nor do I doubt that Arc won a hundred thousand dollars.

What I am concerned about is regular Joe's reading this and being confused by these comments about a positive expectation games and the comments that playing a positive expectation game will make you come out ahead over time. That's a nice comment but we don't know what "over time" means? Is over time as long as a paycheck lasts? Is overtime a month in a casino with non stop playing?

Of course when I question Arc about this he brings up a condition called "the bell curve." Well, why didn't you say this from the beginning. Why don't you say "playing a positive expectation game over time will give results that will fit a bell curve with some players winning, some losing, and some going broke"??

Why isn't the "bell curve" included in the original statement? Because it doesn't make positive games as appealing or your theory as appealing as you want it to be?

And really, what is the difference to an individual player whether the theoretical return from a game is 100.17% or 99.2 percent?? Where is that <1% difference? In the number of full houses? In the number of quads?

Just how many quads or full houses do you get from a paycheck?

Personally, I look at all of these statements about expected returns and positive paytables and file them under the category of "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics." They mean nothing to any individual. You sit down, you feed the machine and you take your chances.

Sure we want to play the games that give us the best returns, but a little truth in advertising is needed here. I don't see it -- the truth in advertising -- until Arc is pressured to concede that there are bell curves on positive expectation games and redietz says only Vampires win every session.

The bottom line is that it is gambling, and you can lose, and you can lose it all. That's the most important thing. And this is why the basic concept of quitting when ahead makes so much good sense.

[Vegas_lover]

I have no reason to doubt him. Nor do I doubt that Arc won a hundred thousand dollars.

What I am concerned about is regular Joe's reading this and being confused by these comments about a positive expectation games and the comments that playing a positive expectation game will make you come out ahead over time. That's a nice comment but we don't know what "over time" means? Is over time as long as a paycheck lasts? Is overtime a month in a casino with non stop playing?

Of course when I question Arc about this he brings up a condition called "the bell curve." Well, why didn't you say this from the beginning. Why don't you say "playing a positive expectation game over time will give results that will fit a bell curve with some players winning, some losing, and some going broke"??

Why isn't the "bell curve" included in the original statement? Because it doesn't make positive games as appealing or your theory as appealing as you want it to be?

And really, what is the difference to an individual player whether the theoretical return from a game is 100.17% or 99.2 percent?? Where is that <1% difference? In the number of full houses? In the number of quads?

Just how many quads or full houses do you get from a paycheck?

Personally, I look at all of these statements about expected returns and positive paytables and file them under the category of "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics." They mean nothing to any individual. You sit down, you feed the machine and you take your chances.

Sure we want to play the games that give us the best returns, but a little truth in advertising is needed here. I don't see it -- the truth in advertising -- until Arc is pressured to concede that there are bell curves on positive expectation games and redietz says only Vampires win every session.

The bottom line is that it is gambling, and you can lose, and you can lose it all. That's the most important thing. And this is why the basic concept of quitting when ahead makes so much good sense.

Sorry Alan, but basically eveything you wrote here is complete bullhockey. It almost seems as if you want to start a new round of controversy and arguments.

You wrote:
What I am concerned about is regular Joe's reading this and being confused by these comments about a positive expectation games and the comments that playing a positive expectation game will make you come out ahead over time. That's a nice comment but we don't know what "over time" means? Is over time as long as a paycheck lasts? Is overtime a month in a casino with non stop playing?

You are concerned about this but you're not concerned about Singer claiming he won 1 million dollars with a system that's based on lucky shots (1700 "special plays") and playing negative expectation games? Playing negative games isn't even a problem as long as you have a WIN goal!!

WOW, you have surprised me bigtime. I'm sorry I'm going to say this because you might feel offended but either you didn't pay attention at school, skipped a lot of basic math classes, or you're a "secret Singer promoter for all the wrong reasons".

Quiting while ahead is always a good move, quiting while ahead 5 credits brings no profit and there will be many times you won't ever be ahead enough credits to cash out a profit that's big enough to make it worth any of your efforts.

The only truth in advertising here is that most of your statements in this reply are just dumb!

[arcimede$]

I notice both Alan and Singer as his jatki persona made lots of claims but didn't back up a single one. That reason is obvious. They are all outright lies. I expect that from Singer, but what's up with Alan?

I've never claimed a person playing positive games will always win. Yet, here we are for the umpteenth hearing Alan making that claim. I'm beginning to wonder if Alan is having memory problems. How can he not remember all the times I've provided him with the facts? How can he not remember all the times I've mentioned "probabilities" vs. "possibilities"? You need to see a doctor Alan, the sooner the better.

[Alan Mendelson]

Vegas_lover: Singer told me he makes "special plays" 5% of the time. Perhaps he exaggerated and makes his special plays 2% of the time?
He says that most of his play is at the $10 level.
He quits after reaching win goals and starts over again after banking previous profits.
Why would I doubt that he won a million dollars?

I have more doubts that Arc won a hundred thousand dollars playing $1 or less video poker, but I will accept his claim.

Arc: Only when pressed do you mention the bell curve, and only when pressed do you admit that a person playing positive games will always win. For the most part you base everything on the claim that playing positive games have made you a winner and anyone reading your comments would come away with the same belief until they see the "clarifications" made later.

You need to see a doctor Alan, the sooner the better. Back to your old tricks of inserting personal attacks? Now don't tell me only Singer and Jatki are guilty of this.

[Vegas_lover]

Vegas_lover: Singer told me he makes "special plays" 5% of the time. Perhaps he exaggerated and makes his special plays 2% of the time?
He says that most of his play is at the $10 level.
He quits after reaching win goals and starts over again after banking previous profits.
Why would I doubt that he won a million dollars?

Alan, this will be my last reply on this subject because all has been covered more than once. All I can say is you and me (and the majority here) have different beliefs about the math involved in VP. My beliefs are based on sience, yours appear to be based on wishful thinking. Sorry, it doesn't get any better than this.

[Alan Mendelson]

Wishful thinking belongs to those who believe that playing a positive expectation game will lead to profits.

I am more realistic. I understand it's gambling. And probabilities mean nothing when you push the button. You could win or lose playing a positive game or a negative game. Preaching that you will win without being clear about the risks and dangers is deceptive.

I am sure that if the Federal Trade Commission ever investigated the claims about "expected return over the long term" there would be all sorts of black box warnings required. The first would be "what is the long term?" The second would be what is the expected return?

I am sure the intentions were good, but the true risks and results of all sorts of gambling have been oversimplified.

Would you agree with that? Or would you fight me that phrases like "expected return" are misleading?

[arcimede$]

Alan, the more you type the more ridiculous you sound. You really are spewing nothing but nonsense. Since you clearly are not capable of understanding the relevant facts you would do better to say nothing. However, I know that is unlikely. It's becoming more and more obvious that you and Singer deserve each other.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arcimedes, there are some times when you get lost in the math and put reality aside. This is one of those times.

If there is one thing to Rob Singer's credit it is that he approaches gambling from a very realistic view. He says up front you cannot beat the casinos unless you do things differently. You may be ahead, Arc, but I think it's only because you either got very lucky or you play so much that you have had more than a normal share of wins (you are at the far right of your bell curve).

If the philosophies were put up for a vote, Singer would win. Why? Because 95% of casinogoers lose on each trip. And to that 95% those "Singerisms" that you are so critical of makes a lot of sense.

Let's deal with reality for a moment:

Would you still be winning without your obscure one-eyed jacks game that was grandfathered at an Indian casino in Minnesota that otherwise would have been eliminated years ago?

And, you've also said that there is no fault for quitting when ahead, so why do you criticize it now? Because, perhaps, it is one of the basics of what Rob Singer preaches?

Try to set aside your hatred for Rob. The discussions would be better.

[redietz]

In case you haven't figured it out, vampires always win because, being immortal and being inside a casino, they are capable of playing, really, really, really, really long sessions at positive expectation machines. I wasn't exactly being deep, but it does bring up the question, Alan, would you actually argue that playing a long, long, long, long time on a positive expectation machine would result in a loss if you know what you're doing? Do you actually believe that?

[Alan Mendelson]

Time is the enemy of a player on a positive expectation game. If you could play indefinitely you would match the pay table. Even Rob Singer says that. So yes, your Vampire could very well be a winner on a positive expectation game.

edited to add: I was out playing poker at Hollywood Park last night when I wrote my initial response (between hands).

Now that I'm home a few more notes:

The question has always been how many hands do you have to see in order to see the long term. If no hand repeated it would be something like 2.518-million hands, if my figuring is correct, to see all combinations of hands in all four suits. If you only used one suit you would never get quads, so don't argue that its 629,740 hands.

Playing 600 hands per hour, it would take about 4,198 hours of continuous play to see that many hands. That's 174.92 days of continuous play without one hand being repeated.

Vampires and maybe Arc can do that. I can't nor can any other casual or recreational player. Singer says he can't and he said he was a professional player for ten+ years.

by the way, I had a miserable night playing poker. I couldn't get on a $100 table so I reluctantly sat at a $200 table and the bluffers were out in full force. I didn't lose much but I felt very bad being bluffed off a couple of hands I would have won. Players actually went to the river with not even an Ace-high... just a bluff.

[Count Room]

In case you haven't figured it out, vampires always win because, being immortal and being inside a casino, they are capable of playing, really, really, really, really long sessions at positive expectation machines. I wasn't exactly being deep, but it does bring up the question, Alan, would you actually argue that playing a long, long, long, long time on a positive expectation machine would result in a loss if you know what you're doing? Do you actually believe that?

I had never even considered the idea of vampires being immortal. Instead, I briefly thought of them coming out only at night. This thought seemed to mesh the best with the previous argument between arci and Alan over whether you can win every session playing positive EV games.

The idea of vampires only coming out at night seems to be more widely publicized than their immortality.

Actually, if you are a robot and you never take breaks, never leave the machine, and you play perfectly until you are ahead, I actually could see it being possible to win every session in positive EV games.

[Alan Mendelson]

since its daylight that kills Vampires, and most casinos have no windows, I will accept Vampires playing 24/7 until the long term is reached. LOL

[arcimede$]

Arcimedes, there are some times when you get lost in the math and put reality aside. This is one of those times.

Alan once again spews pure nonsense. The math describes reality. Only a complete fool believes otherwise.

If there is one thing to Rob Singer's credit it is that he approaches gambling from a very realistic view. He says up front you cannot beat the casinos unless you do things differently. You may be ahead, Arc, but I think it's only because you either got very lucky or you play so much that you have had more than a normal share of wins (you are at the far right of your bell curve).

Wrong again. My actual results are below the expected results. See how easily you are fooled. You want to believe Singer's idiotic nonsense so you try to imagine a situation where I just have to be lucky to have won. Typical of your unthinking ramblings. And, anyone who believes it is "realistic" to claim negative games are beatable while at the same time claiming those playing positive games must lose has a few screws missing.

If the philosophies were put up for a vote, Singer would win. Why? Because 95% of casinogoers lose on each trip. And to that 95% those "Singerisms" that you are so critical of makes a lot of sense.

Bwha haha haha haha. I'm sure they do make sense to math illiterates like yourself. That only goes to demonstrate that a fool and his money are soon parted.

Let's deal with reality for a moment:

That would be nice for a change. When are you going to start?

Would you still be winning without your obscure one-eyed jacks game that was grandfathered at an Indian casino in Minnesota that otherwise would have been eliminated years ago?

Of course I would. If I didn't have a positive game to play I wouldn't play.

And, you've also said that there is no fault for quitting when ahead, so why do you criticize it now? Because, perhaps, it is one of the basics of what Rob Singer preaches?

I don't criticize it. I've said it is a good idea on negative games several times. Why do you lie about my positions?

What I've criticized YOU for is giving Singer credit for a gambling strategy that has existed for decades (if not centuries).

Try to set aside your hatred for Rob. The discussions would be better.

More silly nonsense. I simply deal with the facts. You need to look at yourself more critically. You are being a fool.

[arcimede$]

Time is the enemy of a player on a positive expectation game. If you could play indefinitely you would match the pay table. Even Rob Singer says that. So yes, your Vampire could very well be a winner on a positive expectation game.

Idiotic nonsense.

edited to add: I was out playing poker at Hollywood Park last night when I wrote my initial response (between hands).

Now that I'm home a few more notes:

The question has always been how many hands do you have to see in order to see the long term. If no hand repeated it would be something like 2.518-million hands, if my figuring is correct, to see all combinations of hands in all four suits. If you only used one suit you would never get quads, so don't argue that its 629,740 hands.

More idiotic nonsense.

Playing 600 hands per hour, it would take about 4,198 hours of continuous play to see that many hands. That's 174.92 days of continuous play without one hand being repeated.

More idiotic nonsense.

Vampires and maybe Arc can do that. I can't nor can any other casual or recreational player. Singer says he can't and he said he was a professional player for ten+ years.

Alan, no one has to play a particular number of hands to be ahead. You've been told this many times. Why do you repeat this BS?

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually Arc, there is only one question here: what is the minimum number of hands you have to play in video poker to see all of the possible card combinations? Is it 2,518,960?

[Alan Mendelson]

You know, Arc, I could go point by point, as you have, to point out the silliness of your responses... and how you twist and come up with answers to statements I never made... but I won't. But I will offer a couple of examples just to let you know that you're not going to fool me and you're not going to have carte blanche to twist things around to reach the conclusions you want. So here are a couple "gotchas":

1. "The math describes reality." Of course it does, Arc. The math is fine. Unfortunately you're out of touch with reality.

2. "My actual results are below the expected results." Wow, this is bulletin news!! What are you doing wrong? So now we have this to ponder: playing nothing greater than $1 games including a lot of 25-cents games, over eight years, and with results that are less than the expected results, you have won at least $100,000 playing video poker! You get more amazing every day.

3. "What I've criticized YOU for is giving Singer credit for a gambling strategy that has existed for decades (if not centuries)." This is classic Arc talking here. How many times do I have to tell you that Singer never claimed to be the originator of quitting when ahead? I heard of it and even wrote about it years before I ever heard of Singer -- or you. And others have told you the same thing. Yet you persist in this lie and twist of the truth. (OMG, I said you lie. Well you did.)

4. "Alan, no one has to play a particular number of hands to be ahead. You've been told this many times. Why do you repeat this BS?" The BS, dear Arc, is that you said I said someone has to play a particular number of hands to be ahead. I never said that. I suggested that one would have to play some 2.5-million hands of video poker, at the minimum, to see all of the combinations that are possible with a 52-card deck. No where did I say you had to play a particular number of hands to be ahead. In fact, Singer's entire system is based on quitting when ahead after playing a limited number of hands. Do you agree with Singer on this?

Oh, and watch out for Vampires.

[arcimede$]

Actually Arc, there is only one question here: what is the minimum number of hands you have to play in video poker to see all of the possible card combinations? Is it 2,518,960?

Wrong again. I'll even pass on the fact the number of unique combinations is actually 2,598,960 because it doesn't matter. What is the difference between holding jc jd 3h 4s 5d and js jh 3c 4d 5h in your typical Jacks or better type game? If you answer "none" you are correct. The reality is there are about 170K unique dealt hands when duplicates like the above are considered.

But, it's even worse than that. It's not the dealt hands that make a big difference over short time periods, it's the results. You can be dealt over 200 4RFs like I was a few years ago and not hit a one.

Alan, you simply are clueless when it comes to the mathematics behind VP. Maybe you should consider listening to the experts. You know, those that tell you results form a bell curve and you are almost as likely to be over the ER in the short term as you are to be below it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc there is no difference in the hands when it comes to "payoffs." The question was what consitutes seeing the "long term." I would define the "long term" as seeing all combinations including all suits. The payoffs might be equal for any number of hands, just as quad aces = the same payoff as quads 3s in JOB, but they would not be the same in DDB or Bonus.

But let's get to the bottom line, and I've been thinking about it all morning:

I think you are using this Forum for two purposes: First to attack Singer. Second to attack me because I gave Singer a chance to explain himself.

You have accused me of endorsing him because I gave him and everyone else a chance to see what he had to say. I take that as being not only very shortsighted but also detrimental to the concept of a free and open discussion about what is honestly a very controversial subject.

You are not interested in discussing anything -- but only proving yourself right and anyone who disagrees with you wrong.

So from now on, everything you say is "right" and I am going to ask you to refrain from making further negative comments on this Forum. You are welcome to make constructive additions to the Forum but if you utter one more insulting comment I will ban you. I am tired of your behavior and your behavior brings out the worst in me.

I am not going to let you drag down this Forum. Your battle with Singer, and Singer's battle with you have done too much damage. And I am not going to do battle with you either-- so if you continue I will just block you.

You will never call me or anyone else "clueless," "ignorant," "idiotic" or any other demeaning name, or use any demeaning term. If you cannot respect the Forum participants including the guy who pays for the Forum, you will not be welcome here. Got it, buster?

[arcimede$]

You know, Arc, I could go point by point, as you have, to point out the silliness of your responses... and how you twist and come up with answers to statements I never made... but I won't. But I will offer a couple of examples just to let you know that you're not going to fool me and you're not going to have carte blanche to twist things around to reach the conclusions you want. So here are a couple "gotchas":

Which, of course, are nothing but fantasies.

1. "The math describes reality." Of course it does, Arc. The math is fine. Unfortunately you're out of touch with reality.

Nope, you are the one that believes in fantasies like win goals can change your return. That has been proven to be wrong. What do you call a person who thinks they can over come proven mathematics? Are they in touch with reality?

2. "My actual results are below the expected results." Wow, this is bulletin news!! What are you doing wrong? So now we have this to ponder: playing nothing greater than $1 games including a lot of 25-cents games, over eight years, and with results that are less than the expected results, you have won at least $100,000 playing video poker! You get more amazing every day.

And you get even more dense. If someone is playing with a 2% advantage and they achieve a 1% profit they are doing worse than the expected return. And, they will still earn a profit. This is as simple as it gets. Why do you infer I'm lying when I've explained all this to you before? That is childish behavior.

3. "What I've criticized YOU for is giving Singer credit for a gambling strategy that has existed for decades (if not centuries)." This is classic Arc talking here. How many times do I have to tell you that Singer never claimed to be the originator of quitting when ahead? I heard of it and even wrote about it years before I ever heard of Singer -- or you. And others have told you the same thing. Yet you persist in this lie and twist of the truth. (OMG, I said you lie. Well you did.)

I capitalize and bold the word "you" and you ignore it. Amazing. YOU have given Singer credit for "win goals" many times. Quit denying your own words. It's kind of funny when you claim I twist the truth when you just did exactly that.

4. "Alan, no one has to play a particular number of hands to be ahead. You've been told this many times. Why do you repeat this BS?" The BS, dear Arc, is that you said I said someone has to play a particular number of hands to be ahead. I never said that. I suggested that one would have to play some 2.5-million hands of video poker, at the minimum, to see all of the combinations that are possible with a 52-card deck. No where did I say you had to play a particular number of hands to be ahead. In fact, Singer's entire system is based on quitting when ahead after playing a limited number of hands. Do you agree with Singer on this?

Agree with what? Singer's system incorporates many ideas which are all worthless. They don't change the return of the games being played. This has been proven. That's right, Alan ... PROVEN. There is no question, no doubt, no chance that someone missed something.

Alan, if the 2.6 million hands doesn't mean anything then why did you bring it up? You were implying that the long term is unachievable and hence not a good method of winning. I pointed out that is just more of your silly nonsense.

As for your threats. They mean nothing to me. I've tried to help you. Obviously, you desire to live in your own fantasy world. You are exactly like the conspiracy nuts that think the moon landing was a hoax or the CIA was involved in the 9/11 attacks. You deny reality at any point where your fantasy world is threatened.

I'm done.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, this one statement of yours has me ready to climb the walls:

" YOU have given Singer credit for "win goals" many times. Quit denying your own words. It's kind of funny when you claim I twist the truth when you just did exactly that. "

So let me try one more time to make you understand. When I refer to Singer's win goal system I'm not saying he originated win goals. I'm saying he uses win goals. When I am saying "Singer's win goal system" it doesn't mean I am saying Singer originated win goals or the use of them. Heck, I used win goals when I first started trading stock options in 1973 and I don't think the first video poker machine existed in 1973. And I certainly didn't know who Rob Singer was in 1973.

Why you try to make the connection that my use of the phrase "Singer's win goal system" (or any derivation of it) means something to the tune of me saying "Singer created the win goal system" only stems from your own, deep personal battle with the guy.

I think every one who has read my phrase "Singer's win goal system" would not for an instant believe that I think that Singer is the originator of "win goals."

And that you would think this, and challenge me on it, is only testament to your own personal, deep seeded hate for the man and for anyone who might try to point out anything to his credit.

So rest assured Arc. Singer did not create the win goal system. It was created perhaps hundreds or even thousands of years before Singer set foot on the earth. There was probably some bookmaker in Ancient Rome who took bets on the Gladiators who used win goals.

Now, watch out for the vampires.