The Mendelson Voyage

[Alan Mendelson]

Two questions, Alan:

1) Have you tried that "quit when ahead" stuff on a simulator vp trainer and how did it turn out?
2) How has "quit when ahead" done for you the last dozen or more times you've played in a real casino? I assume since you're advocating it, you're using it.

Surprise, surprise. I've been using and I'm ahead in casinos, with real money. Sorry to disappoint you. But I won't claim that this will happen every time. It's just that it has happened on the last five visits.

And why shouldn't it work? As the statistics show, 95%+ of casino visitors are ahead during some time during their trip, but 99% finish as losers. The key is quitting when ahead. Yes, you might forego more wins to come, but it sure is a nice feeling to leave with a few extra Benjamins in your pocket.

[arcimede$]

Arc I can sum up your position about "winning" with any of several familiar phrases including:

1. No one escapes this world alive.
2. Life is a bitch and then you die.
3. In the end we're all dead men.
4. You can't take it with you.
5. Life is a zero sum game because at the end we all have zero.

Nope, not even close. You can "win" over the long term while gambling. It's called having an advantage and if you want to understand it then go back and read my previous comments on your forum. It's all there, it's not that complicated if you take the time to understand it.

[quahaug]

I would like to know the odds of coming out ahead not for millions or billions of hands but say 50 to 100 thousand which is what my lifetime VP play will probably total. I know I'm way ahead so far relative to losses due to a big jackpot. I really enjoy playing but limit myself to special trips, meaning vacations that include gambling as part of the whole experience rather than sole experience.

[Rob.Singer]

Just sent Alan my detailed Single-Play-Strategy via e-mail. He'll be posting it since I only have my phone with me and the cut & paste function is tricky. I can't answer questions or destroy criticizms until we get our rig to where we're staying for a while in N. Nevada, around Nov. 4th. Retirement for us has been enjoyed maybe TOO much, with the camping, driving, bicycling, and especially the hiking. In fact, my friend arci will like this. The rig is in W. Minnesota right now and we've been touring the state, finding that it really does have at least 10,000 lakes. I thought about stopping by and asking you guys out to dinner, but....

Anyway, we flew into LV late last night to go to a wedding later this afternoon so we had a break in all the activity. We're currently over the hump picking up our other car that was in storage and then after the wedding we're dropping it off @ our new RV park up north before flying to Minneapolis/St. Paul (Stillwater I think) for a visit with our daughter who's working there for 2 weeks, then we're driving the rig down to Nevada. That's why I won't be reading the forum again until early Nov. If there's comments needing responses, I'd like to be able to continually follow thru on them and I can't do that consistently until we park.

My pal jatki gave me some updates on the non-stop Singer talk as well as arci's continual funny lies and misinformation dumps. Poor guy....and I mean that! Here's a task for you arci: We sold our leased-out home on the Big Island in 2009. Now that address was never on my DL and we did live in it for about a month. See if you can find the address....if you're willing to spend another two bucks! Here's a hint: I did feature it on one of my video e-newsletters that talked about how there was no gaming in Hawaii. You've got plenty of time though, to create a story of how some rich guy let me film in his house. I don't know what I'd do without you my friend! You're usually more fun than watching a deck of marked cards being shuffled at a high limit BJ table

If anyone wants to see either or both of my Romp-Thru-Town (RTT) and/or my Advanced RTT (ARTT) strategies, in detail, please let me know and I'll post them when I return.

[arcimede$]

A rented house in Hawaii? Chuckle, chuckle.

Also note no mention of those "notes" that provide the mathematical basis for his system that were supposed to show up in October. What month is it? Even funnier.

[Alan Mendelson]

I would like to know the odds of coming out ahead not for millions or billions of hands but say 50 to 100 thousand

The fewer the number of hands you play, the more impact the big winners will have -- and the better the odds that you will come out ahead. As you play more and more hands, the closer you will come to the expected return. So, if you play millions of hands and the return on your game is 99.2% then you will come closer to 99.2% than if you played just ten hands.

If you quit after a few hands and all of those hands were big winners, you can finish with a far better return than the expected return.

The more you play after hitting a big win gives you more chances to lose it back.

If you have a "plan" of playing four hours a day, every day, without regard to wins and losses you will more likely have the expected return on a machine than a player who decides to stop playing each day that he has a 10% profit.

[arcimede$]

If VP was a perfect normal distribution then Alan's statement would be clearly true. However, it isn't quite normal, so the bell curve is not a perfect bell. In fact, it is skewed to the low end at a lower number of hands. I still think Alan's claim is likely to be true but it may depend on the game itself.

[quahaug]

If VP was a perfect normal distribution then Alan's statement would be clearly true. However, it isn't quite normal, so the bell curve is not a perfect bell. In fact, it is skewed to the low end at a lower number of hands. I still think Alan's claim is likely to be true but it may depend on the game itself.

Arc, what do you mean by low end? Is it the same as right or left? My post was kind of rhetorical as I know that the curve would be very different reflecting a much closer ratio of winners to losers overall.On another note, there is one thing I agree with Singer on and that is playing only in Nevada (and maybe A.C. once or twice) but for a little different reason. three thousand miles is a pretty good ride from home so I have to think more soberly about spending my hard earned money!

[Alan Mendelson]

a much closer ratio of winners to losers overall

Actually, in the short run you are likely to see a wide distribution of winners and losers, more of a true bell curve appears in the short run. In the long run, everybody ends up close to the actual return of the particular video poker game.

Consider this: If a million people played just one hand of 9/6 Jacks or Better at one time, you would get a very few with a royal, some who get quads, some who get two pair, some who get zero etc. As a group of a million players, they would fit the distribution or "bell curve" that Arc likes to talk about. But on an individual basis. the few who got a royal would have a personal "actual return" of a huge percentage win (bet 5 win 4,000) while some would double their money, triple their money, and still others would get zero return (they get a blank on their one spin).

But over millions of hands the same bell curve or distribution would still be apparent, but now for the individuals over millions and millions of plays their own person actual return would be close to the theoretical 99.54% that 9/6 Jacks or Better offers.

So how do you beat the game? You become one of those lucky players who plays very few hands, hits winners, and quits. And your "very few hands" could be played one time, or many times over your lifetime, as long as you "quit when you're ahead."

[arcimede$]

Alan, the proper way of thinking of the bell curve over the long term is that it gets tighter (more vertical) with shorter wings. The problem with "quit when you're ahead" is there is no guarantee anyone gets ahead.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, the proper way of thinking of the bell curve over the long term is that it gets tighter (more vertical) with shorter wings. The problem with "quit when you're ahead" is there is no guarantee anyone gets ahead.

Can't disagree with that.

Edited to add: Question for you, Arc: given enough trials and given enough time, shouldn't the bell curve on a game such as 9/6 Jacks or Better just disappear? Wouldn't everyone given enough trials and given enough time end up with 99.54% return and therefore no bell curve??

[bigfoot66]

Can't disagree with that.

Edited to add: Question for you, Arc: given enough trials and given enough time, shouldn't the bell curve on a game such as 9/6 Jacks or Better just disappear? Wouldn't everyone given enough trials and given enough time end up with 99.54% return and therefore no bell curve??

Kind of but not really. It gets thinner and thinner and thinner, but there will always be cases slightly to either side of the mean.

[arcimede$]

Edited to add: Question for you, Arc: given enough trials and given enough time, shouldn't the bell curve on a game such as 9/6 Jacks or Better just disappear? Wouldn't everyone given enough trials and given enough time end up with 99.54% return and therefore no bell curve??

Yes, in a sense the bell curve would be a vertical line. However, the time and number of hands to reach this point is infinite.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes, in a sense the bell curve would be a vertical line. However, the time and number of hands to reach this point is infinite.

Exactly what I thought. Thanks.

[redietz]

Alan,

Back in 1973, my high school had just started a cross-country team, and our coach walked the course with us as he chain-smoked. He explained, "Fellas, just remember, you have to be ahead at the finish line to win."

God bless him -- he sounded just like you.

Now, seriously, how has that quitting-while-ahead worked for you THE LAST DOZEN OR SO TIMES you've been in a casino? That's what I asked in the post above. Now I get the feeling you have an aversion to out-and-out misreporting, so your answer was restricted to your last five excursions. This debate has been going on for a year, and I suspect in that year (I could be wrong) you've played video poker more than the five times you reported in your post above.

I'll tell you what -- I'll put on my Alan Mendelson mask (since evidently various aka's are okay here) and play video poker according to your quit-while-ahead scenario, and I will report my results here. Now how long must I wait until one session is considered over, and the next one can start? I want to play this by the proper rules.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan,

Now, seriously, how has that quitting-while-ahead worked for you THE LAST DOZEN OR SO TIMES you've been in a casino? That's what I asked in the post above.

I haven't been in a casino a "dozen or so times" since I started the "quit when ahead" play. So I told you: the last five times it's worked just fine.

[regnis]

Hmmmmm--how can a system that calls for leaving with a win be questioned? I don't need an advanced math degree to understand that one.

[Alan Mendelson]

Hmmmmm--how can a system that calls for leaving with a win be questioned? I don't need an advanced math degree to understand that one.

The issue here is not leaving with a win, but being able to attain a win on a negative expectation game. For some reason, Arcimedes and Redietz seem to believe no one can win on a negiative expectation game over time. What Rob Singer has said, and what I have also said, and what gaming author Victor Royer has also said, is that players can be "ahead" at some point during their play and if they quit at that point, they can beat the negative expectation games.

There are statistics showing that 95% of casino goers are ahead at some point during their gambling visit.

So now redietz wants to know if I ever left a casino with a profit? Obviously I have. And he wants to know if I've left with a profit since adopting the "quit when ahead" regimen. And I have. Have I left with a zillion dollar jackpot each time? Of course not. Have I left with a small profit? Yes. Did this happen on the last few trips, number about five? Sure. Will it happen the same way for the next five? How can you predict the future?

Why they challenge this possibility to leave with a profit on a negative expectation game is beyond me?? I've seen gamblers my whole life do it. They sit at slot machine, put in a few bucks, win fifty or a hundred and head to the buffet or the pool. It seems the only poeple who feel compelled to keep playing and to put it back are either the addicts or the professional gamblers.

Doesn't Singer say that?

[Vegas_lover]

What Rob Singer has said, and what I have also said, and what gaming author Victor Royer has also said, is that players can be "ahead" at some point during their play and if they quit at that point, they can beat the negative expectation games.

There are statistics showing that 95% of casino goers are ahead at some point during their gambling visit.

Alan, what has been said to you many, many, many times (but what you seem to "forget" time and time again) is being ahead also means one to 10 credits. Will you drive to Las Vegas (4 to 5 hours) to play videopoker and stop after your first hand because you're ahead $10? I don't think so. A more important statistic would be the following: say you need at least $300 profit to make your gambling session worth the effort. You might want to get the percentage of people that are ahead at least $300 at some point during their gambling visit. I suspect that percentage to be very low!

So, on a negative expectation game, chances you'll be a loser over time are bigger. Nothing difficult about that. If Singer claims to be a winner over a 10 year period on a negative expectation game it has nothing to do with his "system". His system in non-excistant. I do not believe there is a system to consistantly beat a negative expectation game. If Singer won that money, consistantly over a 10 year time period he has just been one lucky guy. It's as simple as that, case closed. No need to sell books, no need to come up with shady explanations about how the "system" works. Why? Because everything he has been posting about his system has been incomplete and leaking like a bucket with a hundred holes.

I think he's really enjoying himself considering how much time he's been the center of attention around here. I can see why his ego has blown up to enormous proportions. You all keep going in the same circles when he isn't even here. His latest "essay" is a new chapter of a whole lot of nothing. Nothing new, nothing consistent. And here we all go again, running around in the same foolish circle..........

[Alan Mendelson]

A more important statistic would be the following: say you need at least $300 profit to make your gambling session worth the effort. You might want to get the percentage of people that are ahead at least $300 at some point during their gambling visit. I suspect that percentage to be very low!

This is really a silly discussion. How can you possibly judge what is "enough of a profit" for someone to quit and be happy? A player with a $50 bankroll could be the happiest person on earth if they got a $25 win -- that's 50%. Or even a fifteen dollar win would pay for the buffet.

I know a retired gentlemen who was in the video poker area at Caesars a few trips back who sat down at a $5 machine, put in one $100 bill, hit quads on DDB for $1250 and got up and left. (At Caesars they don't always ask you to play off the wins, by the way. And if you don't or don't want to they actually leave them showing on the machines.)
And as the gentleman was getting up, I said to him "taking the money and running?" He smiled and said, "why not?" He came back to the VP area again the next day but did not play. He was just walking through the casino and was looking around while on the way to do something else.

Why must you AP people think that everyone feels compelled to keep playing and is glued to their seat for so many hours, or must play for points, or play a minimum number of hours? I wager that some of these players don't even know what pay tables are, don't know the correct strategy or how to play, but are just pleased as punch to get a modest win and go do something else.

Probably 99% of people who go to casinos probably think the APers are nothing but addicted gamblers who are trying to justify what they do. People in the real world go to casinos for one thing -- to have some fun and to take a ride on the wild side. You APers are in a world of your own. Good luck. You need it.