question for math guys

[arcimede$]

Help us out here, Arc, what does "long term play" mean?

Absolutely nothing. And, more to the point, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with "a certain number of hands to surpass the expected return" as regnis stated.

Just how many hands do you need to surpass the expected return? How about ONE hand. Now this is exactly what Rob's strategy is all about. You hit a win goal and you leave.

There is no "number of hands" to surpass the expected return ... and you know it ... so why are making these kind of statements? Now, you could hit a big winner in one hand although it won't happen very often and any strategy that depends on it will fail the vast majority of time. Is that what you are proposing ... a strategy that fails almost every time? Is this why you created this forum? To promote approaches that almost guarantee failure?

[Alan Mendelson]

Absolutely nothing. And, more to the point, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with "a certain number of hands to surpass the expected return" as regnis stated.

There is no "number of hands" to surpass the expected return ... and you know it ... so why are making these kind of statements? Now, you could hit a big winner in one hand although it won't happen very often and any strategy that depends on it will fail the vast majority of time. Is that what you are proposing ... a strategy that fails almost every time? Is this why you created this forum? To promote approaches that almost guarantee failure?

Gee Arc, if I didn't know better I would think that Singer somehow got a hold of your computer and posted this using your name. Congratulations. You've finally have seen the light:

A. "long term play" is nothing but some theoretical idea but means nothing in the real world
B. You can beat the expected return at any time with any number of hands so there is no point to keep pounding at the keys. You might as well cash out when you hit a winner and reached your win goal and go to buffet.

And, no one has ever said any of this has anything to do with any kind of strategy that says you should limit the number of hands you play. This whole discussion has been about quitting when you have reached a win goal.

If anyone has ever introduced the idea of a strategy to limit the number of hands played it is you because you've told us that you play a prescribed amount of time to reach your players' club and comp requirements. No one else has ever suggested any kind of limit on play except for stopping play when reaching an acceptable win.

(Arc... did you start on the holiday egg nog too early?)

[jatki]

Getting up early in the morning sure does yield new and interesting information. Now I see arc, after reading his longterm claims over and again on LV A and other forums for a year or two, suddenly alters his story to how there is no longterm? After always saying that he's operating within it and that's why he's winning six figures a year?

My my my, the pressure is getting to him. Boil some potatoes good buddy, and take deep inhales of the steam being released. It's sure to calm.

[arcimede$]

Gee Arc, if I didn't know better I would think that Singer somehow got a hold of your computer and posted this using your name. Congratulations. You've finally have seen the light:

A. "long term play" is nothing but some theoretical idea but means nothing in the real world

As I've always said there is no long term and there is no short term. It is all a continuum where the probability increases, over time, that a person will approach the expected return of their play. Hence, it is not a "theoretical idea". It is a statistical statement of probabilities.

B. You can beat the expected return at any time with any number of hands so there is no point to keep pounding at the keys. You might as well cash out when you hit a winner and reached your win goal and go to buffet.

You forgot the other half of this claim. You can fail to reach the expected return at any time with any number of hands. It goes both ways. You keep harping on the chances that you might win while ignoring the higher probability that you will lose playing a negative game. And, to top it all off you then claim that you can somehow overcome the random frequencies of the cards by cashing out one day and playing again on another day. That is utter nonsense.

EDIT: I just noticed that billyjoe on vp.com announced a losing trip. Billyjoe has stated that he uses win goals. So Alan, how did he lose?

http://forum.videopoker.com/forum/fo...?TID=5105&PN=2

And, no one has ever said any of this has anything to do with any kind of strategy that says you should limit the number of hands you play. This whole discussion has been about quitting when you have reached a win goal.

If anyone has ever introduced the idea of a strategy to limit the number of hands played it is you because you've told us that you play a prescribed amount of time to reach your players' club and comp requirements. No one else has ever suggested any kind of limit on play except for stopping play when reaching an acceptable win.

So, you're saying you never suggested loss limits.

[arcimede$]

Getting up early in the morning sure does yield new and interesting information. Now I see arc, after reading his longterm claims over and again on LV A and other forums for a year or two, suddenly alters his story to how there is no longterm? After always saying that he's operating within it and that's why he's winning six figures a year?

Lies, lies and more lies.

My my my, the pressure is getting to him. Boil some potatoes good buddy, and take deep inhales of the steam being released. It's sure to calm.

Nice projection. Poor Robbie must be having more problems.

I thought Alan asked Rob to quit posting under the jatki name. I guess Rob doesn't give a hoot what Alan says.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, now you're being argumentative again. But there's nothing to argue. Yes, loss limits are good for those of us who don't have deep pockets. You don't have them, I guess, so you are a rich man who doesn't need them. We po' folk do. Yes, even with win goals you can have losing sessions... but the win goals help us from having even more losing sessions. Oh, those loss limits keep us from losing even more when luck is not on our side. And yeah, we po folk with loss limits and win goals try to play the best paytables too, because we also want to give ourselves the best playing conditions.

Ya see Arc, there's no voodoo.

[jatki]

Lies, lies and more lies.



Nice projection. Poor Robbie must be having more problems.

I thought Alan asked Rob to quit posting under the jatki name. I guess Rob doesn't give a hoot what Alan says.

I'm a big fat liar because arc says so!

My money's on Rob caring what Alan says. You my good buddy are a known and proven liar, starting but not limited to your false internet claims that Singer makes his students use his card when they have a session. Ever since that gotcha you've not taken to me so well. Oh well. Boil dem spuds!

[regnis]

No argument. This is what the math knowledgeable people have always said.



So far, so good.



No, we don't keep "pounding away". We play until we no longer want to play. Why did you make this statement? If you don't know how we play then you should ask. If you make untrue statements about what we think or do then you are lying.



You clearly don't have a clue what "long term play" means. There is no requirement to play a certain number of hands to surpass the expected return. That is just one more nonsense claim that I keep hearing. Why don't spend a little time to understand the facts rather than making these kind of absurd statements?

I will clarify 2 things here--first, it has always seemed that Advantage Players believed that they had to play incredible volumes of play, even employing teams to do so, to achieve their long term advantage. If this does not apply to you then great--you have found a way to do it on less play.

Second--I didn't say that long term play could "surpass" expected return. I stated that you seemed to be surpassing the expected return without the type of long term play associated with Advantage Players.

So the confusion here, which others have subsequently also questioned, is whether you espouse the long term play associated with AP, or some lesser amount. And if it's a lesser amount, how is that different then what the others are saying here.

[jatki]

I wouldn't expect arc to come clean on this one since he's already been caught with his pants down. He espouses, and has espoused voiciferously for at least the past two years on LV A, videopoker.com, and other forums that the reason he claims to be ahead is because he's playing well into the longterm and apparently always has, from day 1 even. I remember this because people have often asked how long that longterm is, and after the big wheels give their opinions he bubbles in with a definition only a one-eyed mother would love. Did I mention how he seems to praise himself as he gives his inpup on this?

So Mr. All the Facts, All the Time, just how are you going to weasel your self out of this one? I know, I'm a liar! Too late.

[arcimede$]

I will clarify 2 things here--first, it has always seemed that Advantage Players believed that they had to play incredible volumes of play, even employing teams to do so, to achieve their long term advantage. If this does not apply to you then great--you have found a way to do it on less play.

The reason why many advantage players play long hours is because they make MORE money by playing more. It has nothing to do with something called the "long term". It's like working a job at $50/hour ... the more hours you put in the more money you make.

Second--I didn't say that long term play could "surpass" expected return. I stated that you seemed to be surpassing the expected return without the type of long term play associated with Advantage Players.

Once again you state "long term play". Get it out of your head. The whole concept of APers requiring long hours of play to win is an invention of Singer. Yes, it's just another one of Robki's lies.

So the confusion here, which others have subsequently also questioned, is whether you espouse the long term play associated with AP, or some lesser amount. And if it's a lesser amount, how is that different then what the others are saying here.

Hopefully, you now understand the fallacy behind your thinking.

[arcimede$]

I wouldn't expect arc to come clean on this one since he's already been caught with his pants down. He espouses, and has espoused voiciferously for at least the past two years on LV A, videopoker.com, and other forums that the reason he claims to be ahead is because he's playing well into the longterm and apparently always has, from day 1 even. I remember this because people have often asked how long that longterm is, and after the big wheels give their opinions he bubbles in with a definition only a one-eyed mother would love. Did I mention how he seems to praise himself as he gives his inpup on this?

So Mr. All the Facts, All the Time, just how are you going to weasel your self out of this one? I know, I'm a liar! Too late.

I see Robki has been hitting the sauce again. Quite humorous to watch him make a fool out of himself yet again.

[Alan Mendelson]

The reason why many advantage players play long hours is because they make MORE money by playing more. It has nothing to do with something called the "long term". It's like working a job at $50/hour ... the more hours you put in the more money you make.

Arc, this of course is the "million dollar question." So, how do you justify this claim that by playing more hours they will make more money? Does it have to do with the "math of the game"? And if so, what part of the math of the game says that you will win more money the longer you play? Is it your "probability" theory again?

You never responded to this statement I made, and perhaps because you didn't see it:

What is the math of the game? It is simply your chance of drawing winning or losing hands based on the selection of cards from a 52 or 53 card deck. THAT is the math of the game. There is nothing else.

But please explain for me how the "math" of the game translates into more income the longer you play? Unless of course you know something about what cards the RNG will deliver which the rest of us -- the non-APers -- don't know.

[Vegas Vic]

The reason why many advantage players play long hours is because they make MORE money by playing more. It has nothing to do with something called the "long term". It's like working a job at $50/hour ... the more hours you put in the more money you make.

Help me out here (if you can without insulting me): doesn't "playing more" get you just that much closer to "over time"? If the math of "over time" gets you to the expected EV (which is most likely a negative expectation), wouldn't players be losing money by playing longer?

If indeed playing more has nothing to do with the math of the game (which says I will inevitably lose), please, please, let me know when the math will kick in so that I will know that I've entered the Over Time Zone and the game at that point is no longer in my favor.

[Alan Mendelson]

Help me out here (if you can without insulting me): doesn't "playing more" get you just that much closer to "over time"? If the math of "over time" gets you to the expected EV (which is most likely a negative expectation), wouldn't players be losing money by playing longer?

Don't you know, Vic? Arc and the other APers never play negative expectation games....and therefore probability means they will probably come out ahead over the long term, or short term, or mid term...if I've been following the argument, I think.

[Vegas Vic]

Don't you know, Vic? Arc and the other APers never play negative expectation games....and therefore probability means they will probably come out ahead over the long term, or short term, or mid term...if I've been following the argument, I think.

That's what I suspected, Alan. I specifically used negative games just to seek clarification. But what I really want to know is this: at what point in the continuum will the positive game make me money because I'm "playing more"? I'm a busy retired dude and need to plan my leisure time accordingly. When I sit down at that positive machine, I don't want to be in the "not playing enough" category. I'm all about the "playing more = making more" gig.

[Alan Mendelson]

Gee, Vic, I can't wait to read Arc's response. But if you look back at a previous comment of his you get an idea of what he might say:

There is no "number of hands" to surpass the expected return ... and you know it ... so why are making these kind of statements? Now, you could hit a big winner in one hand although it won't happen very often

I guess it all comes down to luck probably. Is that what probability says?

[arcimede$]

Arc, this of course is the "million dollar question." So, how do you justify this claim that by playing more hours they will make more money? Does it have to do with the "math of the game"? And if so, what part of the math of the game says that you will win more money the longer you play? Is it your "probability" theory again?

It's just simple math. Of course, you won't make $50 each and every hour. Some hours you win big and other hours you lose. It's just the amount of edge applied to the amount gambled.

You can test this for your self with a coin flip. Assume you bet $10 on every flip and you win $11 if you flip heads and nothing if you flip tails. If you can flip the coin 200 times in an hour you should win $100. Since you would wager 200*10 or $2000 that's a 5% edge. So, go ahead and try it for a few hours and see what you get. There is no guarantee you will win $100/hour but if you are willing to try this you may be surprised how close you get.

You never responded to this statement I made, and perhaps because you didn't see it:

But please explain for me how the "math" of the game translates into more income the longer you play? Unless of course you know something about what cards the RNG will deliver which the rest of us -- the non-APers -- don't know.

At times I think I'm the only one that believes the RNG will actually deliver a random frequency of cards. The argument is that in VP you have more outcomes so it's not like a simple coin flip. While that is somewhat correct it doesn't take that many hands to achieve expectation of most results. If you are playing JOB VP the only hands with a cycle of greater than 100 hands is 4oak and the various straight flushes including the royal. And, since a non-royal SF is such a small part of the overall return you can usually just consider the quads and royal. The quads themselves have a cycle time of around 425 hands.

Hence, in only 10K hands (that's 2 sessions for me) you should see close to expectation of just about everything but these 2 longer cycle result and even quads are pretty likely to be close to the 20-25 range. That means only the RF is really a factor in winning or losing at JOB VP even over relatively short periods of time.

What about 100K hands? 200K? Like I said, I play around 250K every year. Even the royals are starting to become fairly likely to hit in the 4-8 range. So, all the claims about taking millions of hands to "hit the long term" are not based on reality.

Let me repeat that the basic hands, high pairs, two pairs, 3oaks, up to FHs will all be very close to expectation in as little as 20K hands. It's only the few high cycle results that lead to any long term variance. When you look at the portion of the typical games return that is associated with the high cycle results it is usually not all that much. The RF is usually only 2% so a JOB player is likely to be within 2% of the expected return after only 20K hands and get closer as the number of hands increases. Not only that, but almost half of those 2% away from the ER are players who will be ABOVE the expected return.

Alan, since you typically play more than 100K hands in a year you are even more likely to be above these results.

[arcimede$]

Help me out here (if you can without insulting me): doesn't "playing more" get you just that much closer to "over time"? If the math of "over time" gets you to the expected EV (which is most likely a negative expectation), wouldn't players be losing money by playing longer?

If it is a negative expectation then most players will be losing money no matter how long they play.

If indeed playing more has nothing to do with the math of the game (which says I will inevitably lose), please, please, let me know when the math will kick in so that I will know that I've entered the Over Time Zone and the game at that point is no longer in my favor.

The math "kicks in" on your first hand. If you are playing a negative game the math is never in your favor.

[jatki]

Have we ever seen such a long and on and on response on anything from arc? I think that generally means he's trying to make it up as he goes while having trouble convincing even himself of the validity of his array of longterm lies. Being caught as contradictory on this issue does that you know. But dang, look what this obsession's done did to him today, and on Thanksgiving Day of all dates, now he's gotta rush out to the Colonel's and beat the huge
crowds to their supply of Thanksgiving potatoes and gravy. Yummy.

Yes arc, call me Robiki! Just shows how my skill at busting your chops is improving!

[arcimede$]

One of the easiest ways to understand probability distribution is through visualizing the bell curve. A bell curve describes a range of possible results graphically. The vertical axis is the number of players and the horizontal axis is return (like 99.54% for example). The center of the bell curve is usually right around the expected return. The more hands one plays the tighter the bell curve becomes. That is, the difference between actual results and expected results is reduced (as a percentage).

This is easier to understand if you go through some logical thinking. What does a bell curve look like at one hand for JOB? Let's assume a million players. You would have the vast majority of players at 0% having hit a loser on that hand. You would also see a few bumps. Players that hit a high pair would be at 100% return. Those that hit 2 pair would be at 200%, those lucky few who hit a royal would be way to the right, and so on.

Now, lets go to 100 hands. It's now unlikely you would have any folks at 0%. You'd now start to see a lumpy bell starting to form with a few folks way to the right and the majority under 100%. A recognizable bell might start forming at 1000 or 10000 hands. The center of the bell would now be getting closer to the ER. Now, as each player increases the hands they play the bell grows taller around the ER and the edges of the bell (both right and left) start to move closer and closer to the center.

If we could play an infinite number of hands the bell would eventually tighten up to a straight vertical line with all million players exactly at the ER. Of course, that never happens but it is useful to understand that the keeps getting tighter as the number of hands increase.

Now, this is the important part of this discussion. There are always two tails away from the center of the bell. The left one for those doing worse than the ER and the one to the right for those doing better than the ER. People like robki want you to only consider the left tail when talking about APers and the right tail when talking about people who would use his system. They claim it takes time to reach the ER. And while that statement may be true for many players (not all), it's just as likely for a person to do better than the ER over less than infinite hands as it is for them to do worse ... no matter what approach they use. It makes no difference how many hands are played or what betting system is employed. There will be people on both sides.

Since we can't control our luck (whether our play happens to fall on the left or right side). The only thing we can do is set up our play so the center of the bell curve is further to the right. This is what I do by only playing positive games and playing them correctly. The worse the ER of the game the further left the bell is centered. The worse the strategy used (for example, using less than optimal special plays), the the further left the bell is centered.

No one can force a machine to give them better cards. There is no betting scheme (including win/loss goals) that can make a person end up on the right side of the bell. The only thing we can do is play in a way that moves the entire bell to the right.

Now, consider a case where almost the entire bell is located right of line that went through the 100% return position. This is the goal of APers. They have a very small probability of losing because of the games they select and the fact they use optimal strategy.