More success for Bob Dancer losing $21,000.

[Alan Mendelson]

As I said before it is only a small percentage of the portfolio and I suspect that the money is less at risk than most of your investments. You are simply talking out of your ass without understanding the situation. But then, that is typical of a lot of the things you say.

Oops, he just said it again. "it is only a small percentage of the portfolio." It absolutely amazes me if this guy would actually touch his investment principal to play video poker. But apparently he does. I really can't say anything more.

[arcimede$]

He's always been the biggest hoax in video poker, and probably anyone who can rationalize these type of situations already knows it. I'll say this again, NO ONE who says they play only "positive EV" vp games wins anything unless they are extremely and overly lucky, year-in & year-out.

Silly nonsense from someone who obvious cannot add. I wonder why he believes he can make money in a 401K but can't when given an edge in gambling. Only a complete idiot thinks math only works sometimes.

It is a statistical impossibility to do what he claims to have done and is still doing, and anyone who says different is simply reading script out of the math books while applying such a mythical effort to a very perfect, non-stop-playing robot. It is and always has been a validation prop for him to make a successful living out of his video poker business. And kudos to him for being successful at that part of it.

Actually, this kind of idiotic statement only proves what I've been saying about Singer all along. How could it possibly be "statistically impossible" to win when a person has an advantage? That's like saying it's statistically impossible for a casino to win. Obviously, it can't be. In fact, it is improbable that a person with a good edge will not win. But hey, it's Singer spewing exactly the lies I've mentioned before. Nice of him to repeat them, thus proving me correct yet again.

[arcimede$]

Oops, he just said it again. "it is only a small percentage of the portfolio." It absolutely amazes me if this guy would actually touch his investment principal to play video poker. But apparently he does. I really can't say anything more.

Well, you could but you would look just as foolish as you currently look. Once again slowly ... all investments have risk. You do understand this, don't you? Or do you believe your investments can only increase in value? Are you really that clueless?

Once you understand what risk means, then maybe you will learn that some things have more risks and other others have less risks. That isn't above you head, is it? Once you figure all this out then get back to me.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I would like to address these two statements, and I am asking these questions as a journalist who is curious about your position -- and nothing more. And I think I am going to ask questions here that other readers might also be asking themselves.

Your first statement:

I wonder why he believes he can make money in a 401K but can't when given an edge in gambling. Only a complete idiot thinks math only works sometimes.

There are different kinds of 401k's some of which can have guaranteed returns, such as a 401k made up of insured government municipal bonds and US debt obligations. Even some corporate bonds can have insurance. These offer the ultimate in security and don't depend on the irregularities of VP play, having to play or not having income, and the associated risk that your positive edge machines might someday disappear.

So where are your guarantees? You also have told us about losing streaks. Do you ever have a losing streak that is too long and too deep? What assurance do you have that you won't? What if you can't get to the casino to play, then what happens to the video poker income vs income that might be in a 401k made up of government-insured and guaranteed bonds?

Now, your second statement:

How could it possibly be "statistically impossible" to win when a person has an advantage? That's like saying it's statistically impossible for a casino to win.

We've gone over this before, I think. Are you really playing with the same advantage that a casino has that is open 24/7/365 and has perhaps hundreds or even thousands of machines to use to diversify its risk? A casino certainly can base its existence on the math with hundreds and thousands of machines, even if a few "advantage players" take their bite on a few tables or games or machines -- the casino math can accept some of these losses. Businesses can account for losses in their plans.

But can you account for your unexpected losses caused by a bad run from the RNG or bad weather that keeps you from going to the casino, or a cold that keeps you out of the casino for a week at a time, or (hopefully this never happens) the positive edge games that your entire theory depends on are no longer available to play?

As I mentioned before, there are NO positive expectation video poker games in any casino in Southern California. Zero.

[Alan Mendelson]

Once again slowly ... all investments have risk. You do understand this, don't you? Or do you believe your investments can only increase in value?

This will come as a shock to you Arc, but there are some investments that never lose value... unless this country fails and that black hole swallows up the earth. And then, your video poker return won't matter anymore anyway.

No one has ever lost a dime in a government insured bank account, or in a US treasury security. Take that to the bank.

[arcimede$]

This will come as a shock to you Arc, but there are some investments that never lose value... unless this country fails and that black hole swallows up the earth. And then, your video poker return won't matter anymore anyway.

I wouldn't worry too much about black holes but there is a growing probability that our country could go bankrupt. What happens to all your "guaranteed" investments then? Like I said, all investments have risk.

Given a big enough edge and a sufficient bankroll, there is no doubt that playing VP is far superior to any of your low return investments. Of course, it requires some degree of analytical skill to understand this. I don't really expect you to understand. You don't have the required skill.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, if our country goes bankrupt, all of that money you won playing video poker won't do you any good.

You remind of a little kid who keeps saying "why" or "what if" or "but" and has an answer for everything.

[regnis]

IGiven a big enough edge and a sufficient bankroll, there is no doubt that playing VP is far superior to any of your low return investments. Of course, it requires some degree of analytical skill to understand this. I don't really expect you to understand. You don't have the required skill.

He's right Alan. Only Arci has the required skill to play short term yet achieve long term results--and never falls on the down side of that bell curve he loves so muc

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I fully understand about pensions. In fact, I started to collect my union pension after I turned 55 even though I continue to work, continue to make contributions to my pension fund, and continue to see my pension increase. Actually, I decided to start drawing my pension early when I heard about financial planner Suze Orman talk about it and discovered that over my lifetime I will actually take in more money than waiting till I'm 65 to draw on it.

But again Arc is considering playing video poker as part of his "investment" plan. The key word is "investment". Remembering this post earlier:



He says he dips into investment accounts for gambling. This is what I am challenging. You never dip into any investment account for gambling. Money for recreation that comes from a pension or SS or even from distributions of investments do make sense. But you never use the base amount of an investment pool for something like gambling. Does Arc want to clarify his statement now?

I'm not familiar with union pensions but they may be similar to a US Gov't. pension, in that I believe there were contributions taken out for it each month. The big company pensions, however, are a benefit that we never put a dime towards, and they are very generous retirement income sources.

If arci is telling you he dips into "investment accounts" for gambling money, he's either trying to impress you with Suzy Orman-type chatter, he's embarrassed over the piddly amount of his pension from IBM, or he's just about had enough of being couped up and is applying a "who cares at this point anyway?" type attitude. He spends all his time trying to make people think he's the most impressive thing to come along since the toilet seat, and he comes up with a statement like that? You're absolutely right.

[Alan Mendelson]

The union pension that I have is employer paid, and it is a defined benefit plan. I've been employed at union-TV and radio stations going back to the mid-1970s. The contributions made currently are by the companies that I produce the TV infomercials for. I don't personally make the contributions. But because I am still working, contributions continue to be made to my "account" and therefore my pension benefits get an annual increase from the additional contributions.

besides my pension benefits, our health insurance is covered. they picked up the entire tab for my transplants (even the pancreas transplant which was considered experimental) as well as for dialysis.

[arcimede$]

He's right Alan. Only Arci has the required skill to play short term yet achieve long term results--and never falls on the down side of that bell curve he loves so muc

I've been on the downside of the bell curve many times ... and still won money.

[arcimede$]

If arci is telling you he dips into "investment accounts" for gambling money, he's either trying to impress you with Suzy Orman-type chatter,

I've only stated that the money originally constituted my bankroll. The fact is I have already tripled the amount I set aside as my bankroll and never actually touched it. That's what often happens when a player has a big edge. So, in many ways this discussion is moot. My current bankroll is all composed of previous winnings. In other words, all the complaints now are beyond silly.

he's embarrassed over the piddly amount of his pension from IBM,

It covers my expenses. Seeing as how I've lived on it for over 14 years without dipping into my retirement account should put this Singer lie to rest.

or he's just about had enough of being couped up and is applying a "who cares at this point anyway?" type attitude. He spends all his time trying to make people think he's the most impressive thing to come along since the toilet seat, and he comes up with a statement like that? You're absolutely right.

So, you think I'm "impressive". I always knew you were jealous, but it sounds like you've turned a permanent shade of green.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've been on the downside of the bell curve many times ... and still won money.

And as you should. I am sure your bell curve represents a sliding scale of both amounts won and percentage of players winning those amounts.

I'd be curious to know, if you have any research which shows what percentage of video poker players go "bust" (down to zero) on each session they play, and what percentage leave with a profit -- any profit will do. Of course a sliding scale on the percentage of session bankroll lost for everyone else would be interesting.

I am sure that takes care of the three groups of players:

1. those who lost all of their session bankroll
2. those who lost part of the session bankroll
3. those who made a profit at the session

any numbers like that?

[Alan Mendelson]

My current bankroll is all composed of previous winnings.

Well why didnt you say that originally instead of making it seem as though you are using life savings?

[bigfoot66]

No one has ever lost a dime in a government insured bank account, or in a US treasury security. Take that to the bank.

That will change. Even if the dollars get repaid the govt will inflate the money to the point that real returns are negative. In other words the $50 invested in 2012 will be worth more than the $60 returned in 2016. And what about people who bought confederate bonds, or the people who used early continental currency. Your statement is technically correct but suggests that there is no risk in US government backed investments, and this is far from true. I actually believe a well funded, intelligent, disciplined AP sitting on an edge of .7% or greater is a much wiser investor than someone buying 30 year savings bonds today.

[regnis]

Or--you could get a part time job and have no risk and maybe get some benefits too.

What if the advantage VPer loses? What about the bell curve?

Ridiculous.

[Alan Mendelson]

For everyone who thinks there is risk that the United States will go broke or default, or that our money will be worthless as what happened to "Confederate States" currency and bonds after the Civil War, consider this:

If the U. S. defaults, goes broke, or our currency is deemed worthless, it won't matter anymore that you win at video poker. Period.

[arcimede$]

For everyone who thinks there is risk that the United States will go broke or default, or that our money will be worthless as what happened to "Confederate States" currency and bonds after the Civil War, consider this:

If the U. S. defaults, goes broke, or our currency is deemed worthless, it won't matter anymore that you win at video poker. Period.

Nonsense. Investments in gold and/or other currencies could still do quite well.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nonsense. Investments in gold and/or other currencies could still do quite well.

Oh yeah, I forgot that IGT was developing video poker machines that take gold coins. LOL

[arcimede$]

Sounds like a good machine to own