question for math guys

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for taking the time for the lengthy explanation. Of course it makes sense until you have to apply it to the bankroll of the individual player. It still makes sense for an individual to think of video poker that way -- but their own bankroll may not allow them to play that way.

You could make the argument that gamblers should not play VP above their bankroll, and that would be valid.

But truly we are back to the question of "who can live by the math, the player or the casino?"

Certainly, the casino can afford to live "by the math." The players unless they have a lot of disposable income (relative to the denomination they play) can not.

Remember in 2011... I had a royal flush drought of more than 180,000 hands. The "math guys" called that normal. Normal? Are you kidding me? That was horrendous. Maybe on a "math basis" it was normal but it was horrific on my bank account which is why much of my play this year is at lower denominations, and even though I have had 8 royals so far this year (or is it 9?), only 2 were at $5 games and the rest at $1 and $2 games.

I think the point is this: the "math" makes sense on a theoretical level. But players want something more "reliable" than just "what should happen." So the challenge is to come up with a way of playing the game to maximize wins and limit losses. That might fly in the face of your "math theory" but we're talking dollars and cents here.

I hate to start a new argument, but what "win goals" and "loss limits" do is try to smooth out the fluctuations that the "math theory" says you must accept. And players would use win goals and loss limits because they don't want to be forced to accept the fluctuations that the math would say are inevitable.

[arcimede$]

Arc, Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for taking the time for the lengthy explanation. Of course it makes sense until you have to apply it to the bankroll of the individual player. It still makes sense for an individual to think of video poker that way -- but their own bankroll may not allow them to play that way.

You could make the argument that gamblers should not play VP above their bankroll, and that would be valid.

Yes it would. You, as forum owner should harp on that very point instead of making excuses for people to play poorly.

But truly we are back to the question of "who can live by the math, the player or the casino?"

Certainly, the casino can afford to live "by the math." The players unless they have a lot of disposable income (relative to the denomination they play) can not.

Wrong. There is no way to avoid the math. It is what it is. To imply that players can avoid the implications of the math is down right immoral. You need to be very careful here. You worry about me using words like scam and fraud but you are very thin ice here if you tell players they are not subject to mathematical principles.

Remember in 2011... I had a royal flush drought of more than 180,000 hands. The "math guys" called that normal. Normal? Are you kidding me? That was horrendous. Maybe on a "math basis" it was normal but it was horrific on my bank account which is why much of my play this year is at lower denominations, and even though I have had 8 royals so far this year (or is it 9?), only 2 were at $5 games and the rest at $1 and $2 games.

I doubt anyone claimed it was "normal". It was a low probability result but possible (as you love to discuss).

I think the point is this: the "math" makes sense on a theoretical level. But players want something more "reliable" than just "what should happen." So the challenge is to come up with a way of playing the game to maximize wins and limit losses. That might fly in the face of your "math theory" but we're talking dollars and cents here.

No, you are talking nonsense. THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID THE MATH. Got it?

I hate to start a new argument, but what "win goals" and "loss limits" do is try to smooth out the fluctuations that the "math theory" says you must accept. And players would use win goals and loss limits because they don't want to be forced to accept the fluctuations that the math would say are inevitable.

Do you think win goals would have led you hit a RF in less that 180K hands? You might have played less hands but there's nothing that can guarantee you will hit a RF.

Now, let's look at your last 2 years results. Sounds like you've had 8-9 RFs over around 300+K hands. Slightly above average but now you fit into what might be called "normal". You happen to have a fairly large fluctuation that isn't that likely, but overall you are quite close the center of the bell curve. And, it didn't take you millions of hands.

While I stated your ups and downs weren't that likely it turns out that if you play enough the chances for having that kind of variation increases. In 20 years of play there's probably better than a 50% chance you would see exactly what you have seen the last 2 years.

You may wonder how an unlikely event actually becomes likely. Let's say there's only a 3% chance for you to have experienced your results the last two years. Pretty unlikely, right? However, over 20 years there are 19 such periods and 3*19 = 57%. So, over 20 years the chances of having exactly what you experienced are better than 50%, in other words, likely.

[Alan Mendelson]

You misunderstood Arc when you wrote: "Wrong. There is no way to avoid the math. It is what it is. To imply that players can avoid the implications of the math is down right immoral."

No one is saying that you should avoid the math, including me. What I am saying is that the math has wide variance that individual players may not be able to withstand. When we as individuals play a game with a 99.5% return (a casino edge of one-half of one percent) we might quickly lose our entire bankroll, or we might get lucky and win big. As you put it -- we as individuals could be any place on your bell curve.

But what individuals want is a way to limit that bell curve experience. Many players would rather be in a narrow range of profit and loss than subject themselves to big swings of wins and losses. And that, Arc, is just human nature. It is not challenging the math. It is not trying to avoid the math. It is trying to make playing video poker and all casino games more enjoyable.

In other words, we humans want to make playing video poker more of an enjoyment than a mathematical discipline or exercise. So how do we make it more enjoyable?

Well, we could have win goals. And we could set loss limits. No one is trying to avoid the math. They just want to do better when they gamble or play. After all, for the most part we are recreational players -- and we don't put our noses or fingers to the grindstone (or buttons) the way the APs might.

[arcimede$]

You misunderstood Arc when you wrote: "Wrong. There is no way to avoid the math. It is what it is. To imply that players can avoid the implications of the math is down right immoral."

No one is saying that you should avoid the math, including me. What I am saying is that the math has wide variance that individual players may not be able to withstand. When we as individuals play a game with a 99.5% return (a casino edge of one-half of one percent) we might quickly lose our entire bankroll, or we might get lucky and win big. As you put it -- we as individuals could be any place on your bell curve.

But what individuals want is a way to limit that bell curve experience. Many players would rather be in a narrow range of profit and loss than subject themselves to big swings of wins and losses. And that, Arc, is just human nature. It is not challenging the math. It is not trying to avoid the math. It is trying to make playing video poker and all casino games more enjoyable.

It is both "challenging" and "avoiding" the math if you think you have any degree of control over your results. It's quite amazing to see you play words games. You can limit your play (by win/loss goals or by just getting off your butt and leaving at any time) ... but what does that really mean? If you were on the edge of "playing within your bankroll", it now means you ARE playing within that bankroll. You didn't change anything about the math of the game. You are still subject to whatever swings exist.

In other words, we humans want to make playing video poker more of an enjoyment than a mathematical discipline or exercise. So how do we make it more enjoyable?

Well, we could have win goals. And we could set loss limits. No one is trying to avoid the math. They just want to do better when they gamble or play. After all, for the most part we are recreational players -- and we don't put our noses or fingers to the grindstone (or buttons) the way the APs might.

As you now should realize all this is nothing but silly nonsense.

[arcimede$]

Alan, if you spent any time reading what I said about the bell curve, you should realize that win/loss goals will actually lead to wider swings than you might see otherwise. The logic is pretty simple, since a player converges on their ER over time the less they play the wider the bell curve will be. That means they have a higher probability of being further left or right of the center of the bell curve. In other words, they will have experienced wider swings.

Now, you could say they will experience it over a longer time period. That is true, but that is not the same as saying they will "be in a narrow range of profit and loss" and they will not "subject themselves to big swings of wins and losses". It's just those ranges occur over multiple sessions.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if you spent any time reading what I said about the bell curve, you should realize that win/loss goals will actually lead to wider swings than you might see otherwise. The logic is pretty simple, since a player converges on their ER over time the less they play the wider the bell curve will be. That means they have a higher probability of being further left or right of the center of the bell curve. In other words, they will have experienced wider swings.

Now, you could say they will experience it over a longer time period. That is true, but that is not the same as saying they will "be in a narrow range of profit and loss" and they will not "subject themselves to big swings of wins and losses". It's just those ranges occur over multiple sessions.

Interesting concept here. Let me suggest this:

You are looking at the bell curve as a "life long" application. Professional gamblers might do this, but recreational players don't. Recreational players look at each session, each trip, each casino visit as a unique experience. That's why they can say "I won this time in Vegas," or "I lost in Vegas." They might never say "I won this time, but over my life I'm down." That is the difference between a recreational player and a professional player, or one who lives by a "long term code," which is what you do Arc whether you admit to it or not.

So let's get back to your bell curve: that recreational player who only measures casino trips as unique experiences (one at a time) cares more about smaller swings for that one visit than what you care about, which is accepting wider swings that will even out in the long run.

So what's the bottom line? it is simply this. People who follow the concept of win goals and even those who follow Singer's special plays and even his "strategies" have a different mind set than you do. And anyone looking at each trip or visit or session as a unique experience will never accept any of your long term applications, just as you can't accept their short term view.

To put it in simple terms: You, Arc, are watching a movie in an IMAX theater, while those who disagree with you are watching the same movie on a living room wall in 8-milimeter. To enjoy the movie in IMAX you need different things than what you would need to enjoy the same movie on a living room wall in 8mm. The IMAX viewer will scoff at those watching at home in 8mm, but the family watching on the living room wall from an 8mm projector can also be happy and have a good time.

[arcimede$]

Interesting concept here. Let me suggest this:

It's not a concept. It's the application of basic math.

You are looking at the bell curve as a "life long" application. Professional gamblers might do this, but recreational players don't. Recreational players look at each session, each trip, each casino visit as a unique experience. That's why they can say "I won this time in Vegas," or "I lost in Vegas." They might never say "I won this time, but over my life I'm down." That is the difference between a recreational player and a professional player, or one who lives by a "long term code," which is what you do Arc whether you admit to it or not.

Alan, I provided you with a view of how a bell curve evolves "over time". It has nothing to do with how you divide play into sessions. It is a description of how random events play out. I don't care how you want to divide the play. That doesn't change the reality of what happens. I'm simply providing you with the basics. You appear to want to create some kind of alternate reality. Sorry, there is none.

So let's get back to your bell curve: that recreational player who only measures casino trips as unique experiences (one at a time) cares more about smaller swings for that one visit than what you care about, which is accepting wider swings that will even out in the long run.

So what, the swings occur NO MATTER WHAT he cares about. That's why I don't want you misleading people with claims that aren't true. I don't care how you play (or anyone else), so I don't recommend any betting system. I don't think claiming setting win/loss goals will change someone's results is a good idea. Do you really want someone to go off and adopt a method of play based on your statements? What if they lose over and over again? Do you want them to blame you?

So what's the bottom line? it is simply this. People who follow the concept of win goals and even those who follow Singer's special plays and even his "strategies" have a different mind set than you do. And anyone looking at each trip or visit or session as a unique experience will never accept any of your long term applications, just as you can't accept their short term view.

The application is not long term or short term, it just evolves over time. All I am telling you is your manufactured end points don't change anything. The play evolves no matter what you do as long as you return to play again. I have nothing against anyone stopping for any reason, I just don't want you (or them) to think that provides them with the ability to change their expected results.

You keep confusing the issue with how I play. Since I don't play negative games how I play has nothing to do with this discussion. Time for you to quit making up stuff. I'm simply pointing out the reality of VP play. You appear to want to obfuscate it. It's not all that difficult to understand so why don't you start trying to educate yourself? You are being dishonest and creating an environment where people could go wrong. If you were doing that without the access to the facts you could be forgiven. But you have all the facts and you choose to ignore them, or worse, argue against them ... that is immoral.

To put it in simple terms: You, Arc, are watching a movie in an IMAX theater, while those who disagree with you are watching the same movie on a living room wall in 8-milimeter. To enjoy the movie in IMAX you need different things than what you would need to enjoy the same movie on a living room wall in 8mm. The IMAX viewer will scoff at those watching at home in 8mm, but the family watching on the living room wall from an 8mm projector can also be happy and have a good time.[/QUOTE]

[arcimede$]

[QUOTE=arcimede$;8660]It's not a concept. It's the application of basic math.



Alan, I provided you with a view of how a bell curve evolves "over time". It has nothing to do with how you divide play into sessions. It is a description of how random events play out. I don't care how you want to divide the play. That doesn't change the reality of what happens. I'm simply providing you with the basics. You appear to want to create some kind of alternate reality. Sorry, there is none.



So what, the swings occur NO MATTER WHAT he cares about. That's why I don't want you misleading people with claims that aren't true. I don't care how you play (or anyone else), so I don't recommend any betting system. I don't think claiming setting win/loss goals will change someone's results is a good idea. Do you really want someone to go off and adopt a method of play based on your statements? What if they lose over and over again? Do you want them to blame you?



The application is not long term or short term, it just evolves over time. All I am telling you is your manufactured end points don't change anything. The play evolves no matter what you do as long as you return to play again. I have nothing against anyone stopping for any reason, I just don't want you (or them) to think that provides them with the ability to change their expected results.

You keep confusing the issue with how I play. Since I don't play negative games how I play has nothing to do with this discussion. Time for you to quit making up stuff. I'm simply pointing out the reality of VP play. You appear to want to obfuscate it. It's not all that difficult to understand so why don't you start trying to educate yourself? You are being dishonest and creating an environment where people could go wrong. If you were doing that without the access to the facts you could be forgiven. But you have all the facts and you choose to ignore them, or worse, argue against them ... that is immoral.

To put it in simple terms: You, Arc, are watching a movie in an IMAX theater, while those who disagree with you are watching the same movie on a living room wall in 8-milimeter. To enjoy the movie in IMAX you need different things than what you would need to enjoy the same movie on a living room wall in 8mm. The IMAX viewer will scoff at those watching at home in 8mm, but the family watching on the living room wall from an 8mm projector can also be happy and have a good time.

Silly nonsense. Your analogy is as flawed as the rest of your thinking. That you think this somehow applies to the discussion is almost beyond belief.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: It's not a concept. It's the application of basic math.

No, this is you in a dream world. The math that you tout is nothing more than the odds of drawing winning hands. It has nothing to do with the decisions made about playing, when you play, how much you play, when you stop with a win, or when you call it a day with a loss. You might use your paytable expectations to help you, but all of those decisions are based on one's personal tastes and desires and bankroll and interests in playing.

You can justify playing anyway you want. You can just come out and say you are addicted and it would make more sense than to say there is some mathematical justification for playing video poker. Because there is no mathematical justification. Your much touted paytables are not the paytables on bonds or interest bearing certificates of deposit. Your video poker paytables are only guides for what happens if you make the correct holds and the RNG cooperates and fulfills your dreams.

Stop trying to use math to justify your personal tastes, or your personal luck, or your personal success and to say that anyone else's plan for play is wrong.

As long as random number generators are random, your math strategy is nothing more than a hope, a prayer and wishful thinking. And as an individual you have less chance of having those hopes, prayers and wishful thinking come true than a casino does which has more video poker games going to help your much touted probability help its cause.

Arc if you really did score a profit of a hundred thousand dollars playing no higher than one dollar video poker over eight years, you are one lucky sonofabitch. Go write a book about the "Arcrimede$ method." Because if you do, you will face more criticism and attacks than Rob Singer ever did or ever will.

Because your claims of winning that much money on quarter to one dollar games is preposterous compared to Rob's verified win of $100,000 royal on a $25/coin 8/5 Bonus game at Bellagio holding three to the royal while breaking up dealt trip queens.

Enjoy your turkey, Im off to dinner.

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote: It's not a concept. It's the application of basic math.

No, this is you in a dream world. The math that you tout is nothing more than the odds of drawing winning hands. It has nothing to do with the decisions made about playing, when you play, how much you play, when you stop with a win, or when you call it a day with a loss. You might use your paytable expectations to help you, but all of those decisions are based on one's personal tastes and desires and bankroll and interests in playing.

Once again I can only say ... so what. It doesn't change the reality of how play evolves. As I keep trying to get through your thick skull, those decisions only manifest as a temporary impression. They have nothing to do with a person's expectation over time.

You can justify playing anyway you want. You can just come out and say you are addicted and it would make more sense than to say there is some mathematical justification for playing video poker. Because there is no mathematical justification. Your much touted paytables are not the paytables on bonds or interest bearing certificates of deposit. Your video poker paytables are only guides for what happens if you make the correct holds and the RNG cooperates and fulfills your dreams.

Pure nonsense. Once again you keep trying to make this about me. First of all I would never tell anyone to use my approach when playing negative games. It does not apply. So quit with the BS. I've said nothing about my play here. I'm simply pointing out the reality of VP play and you obviously don't like reality. Tough.

Stop trying to use math to justify your personal tastes, or your personal luck, or your personal success and to say that anyone else's plan for play is wrong.

I haven't said anything about my play, you're going off the deep end now. I've been discussing how randomness applies to VP. You keep trying to turn it into you vs. me. I don't care how you play, I only care when you make claims that are incorrect and you keep right on doing it. In fact, it's obvious you didn't read my last comment. You are so caught up in your own little world you refuse to even consider anything else. And, to top it off your thoughts are directly opposite the beliefs of every mathematician in the world. Yes, that makes you an idiot. If you don't want to be called an idiot then I suggest you quit acting like one.

As long as random number generators are random, your math strategy is nothing more than a hope, a prayer and wishful thinking. And as an individual you have less chance of having those hopes, prayers and wishful thinking come true than a casino does which has more video poker games going to help your much touted probability help its cause.

The ravings of someone trying to ignore reality. You've been provided with enough information that you are now to the point of being completely dishonest. You would rather lie about me or almost anything then accept reality.

Arc if you really did score a profit of a hundred thousand dollars playing no higher than one dollar video poker over eight years, you are one lucky sonofabitch. Go write a book about the "Arcrimede$ method." Because if you do, you will face more criticism and attacks than Rob Singer ever did or ever will.

Because your claims of winning that much money on quarter to one dollar games is preposterous compared to Rob's verified win of $100,000 royal on a $25/coin 8/5 Bonus game at Bellagio holding three to the royal while breaking up dealt trip queens.

Enjoy your turkey, Im off to dinner.

Your like the proverbial horse. You can drag them to water ... or, in this case knowledge, but you can't make them drink. Your comments are utter nonsense and you might as well be saying casinos instead of me. It applies just as much. If the math didn't work the casinos would go broke. And here you are saying the math is worthless "hopes, prayers and wishful thinking".

So, maybe we need to get psychological. Why does Alan go off into these rants? Why does he want to argue with well established mathematical facts? That could be an interesting discussion.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you still don't understand this, do you? You as an individual player have to get lucky, but the casino with all of its hundreds of games and operating 24/7/365 can depend on the math.

You wrote: ...you might as well be saying casinos instead of me. It applies just as much. If the math didn't work the casinos would go broke. And here you are saying the math is worthless "hopes, prayers and wishful thinking".

The math does work and because the casinos can play by the math 24/7 and because the casinos have deep pockets they can sit back and wait for the bell curve to work its magic smoothing out the spurts and runs and cycles and variance. No player can do that on one trip. And as I wrote earlier, which you ignored, as recreational gamblers we have to look at our play one trip or one session at a time. And so we adjust our strategies, our plays, and we accept concepts such as cutting losses and quitting when we hit win goals.

Only casinos, professional gamblers, and addicts look at it differently. Casinos bank on the math as well they should. Professional gamblers can bank on the math because they have the resources and time to wait out the variance on their chosen games. Addicts will bank on the math because that provides them justification to keep pouring good money after bad because they know it will all "even out in the end" and that big win is coming. Which of the three are you?

[jatki]

I've literally been piling down the chow since my last post this morning. I now have a bloated gut, heartburn, and an overabundance of gas. I can't sleep. But still, it sure looks like my day was 1000% more enjoyable than arc's, because watching such a self-described intellect try to squirm and doodle his way out of the pickle he talked himself into shows a very bad day in spades. Yes it does.

I sure hope he didn't disappoint his family and had the time to cook that meal and get that delicious fast food potatoes and gravy, or did he? Could be he spent all his time on a forum! What a great life he must have, and the fun must be breathtaking. Gobble Gobble.

Alan since he was undoubtedly lying about winning or playing or nickel and diming or outsmarting the casinos or whatever his story is as it evolves, my label for all that is a misanthrope. Hold it, where'd that come from? Arc seems like the most likeable, most adorable, most fun loving, and least embattled poster here. Psst., I must be mistaken, hehaw.

Gobble Gobble, I think I'll pour myself a drink. Happy Black Friday.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you still don't understand this, do you? You as an individual player have to get lucky, but the casino with all of its hundreds of games and operating 24/7/365 can depend on the math.

Even if that were true it's just another big SO WHAT. You can't control your luck so why do you keep bringing it up? What do you not understand about randomness that makes you think you can do a single thing about the cards that are dealt to you?

You wrote: ...you might as well be saying casinos instead of me. It applies just as much. If the math didn't work the casinos would go broke. And here you are saying the math is worthless "hopes, prayers and wishful thinking".

The math does work and because the casinos can play by the math 24/7 and because the casinos have deep pockets they can sit back and wait for the bell curve to work its magic smoothing out the spurts and runs and cycles and variance. No player can do that on one trip. And as I wrote earlier, which you ignored, as recreational gamblers we have to look at our play one trip or one session at a time. And so we adjust our strategies, our plays, and we accept concepts such as cutting losses and quitting when we hit win goals.

The problem with you statement (other than your lack of understanding the when the math applies) is your "adjust"ments don't do squat. Sorry, that is what I keep trying to tell you and you refuse to accept. No one cares if YOU use win/loss goals. However, when you claim they make a difference in a person's expectation then you are lying.

Only casinos, professional gamblers, and addicts look at it differently. Casinos bank on the math as well they should. Professional gamblers can bank on the math because they have the resources and time to wait out the variance on their chosen games. Addicts will bank on the math because that provides them justification to keep pouring good money after bad because they know it will all "even out in the end" and that big win is coming. Which of the three are you?

Have you quit beating your wife? Same kind of logic went into your statement. It is nothing but silly nonsense based on your own massive ignorance.

I provided you with enough information about the cycle time of 99% of the results you see in VP. It doesn't take millions of hands and you don't have to be a casino for the math to apply to your play. It applies whether you accept it or not. When are you going to quit with these dishonest claims?

[arcimede$]

Alan, here's an example to prove my point.

What's the difference between these two scenarios. Player 1 goes to a casino and plays 10,000 hands. He wins or loses X amount of money. He's one of those folks you claim is an addict or whatever. Now we have Player 2. He goes to the casino with win and loss goals and ends up averaging around 1000 hands before hitting one of those goals. He goes to a casino 10 times. He wins or loses Y amount of money.

Is there any reason to believe that X is not equal to Y?
With a random distribution of cards why would you expect them to be different?

If you are honest you will say that there is no reason for them to be different. They have exactly the same odds of winning or losing over those 10,000 hands. All the win/loss goals did was stretch out the time that it took.

So, is this good or bad. Well, on negative machines this is probably good because Player 2 will likely gamble less than Player 1 and therefore lose less money. However, the return of both players (as a %) is exactly the same. On positive machines Player 2 will generally win less money for the exact same reasons. I'm not saying these players will always lose on negative machines or always win on positive machines. However, the chances are much greater for this to occur, and the more negative or more positive the machines, the greater the chances.

So, if you are giving advice to players then you MUST take into account the machine return. In addition, if you are honest you need to tell players that the only thing win/loss goals provide on negative machines is a chance to play less which most often means they will lose less (and there are many ways to play less). Also, the way to lose the least is to not play at all.

[arcimede$]

... watching such a self-described intellect try to squirm and doodle his way out of the pickle he talked himself into shows a very bad day in spades. Yes it does.

Absolutely perfect projection. And right on the money, too. One can only wonder about the misery in robki's life. Forced to tell his lies under a another id only adds to the obvious dishonesty in everything he says.

I sure hope he didn't disappoint his family and had the time to cook that meal and get that delicious fast food potatoes and gravy, or did he?

Bought the gravy yesterday. Always better than anything I could make. It was a great meal and we enjoyed it immensely. Could it be that robki is projecting yet again? Is he a complete disappointment to his family ... sure appears that way.

Alan since he was undoubtedly lying about winning or playing or nickel and diming or outsmarting the casinos or whatever his story is as it evolves...

Yes, more projections of his own failures and false claims of winning. This is almost as good as the cherry cheese cake I made for dessert.

I suspect robki had to settle for green jello for dessert to match his obvious envy of successful VP players.

[jatki]

Looks like another mind-bending enjoyable day of pointless arguing and insults at the arc's. And I thought MY life was difficult and challenging with all the family problems we're dealing with and after doing a botched-up, slow kill job chopping the poor turkey's head off.

Arc, accept it. Normal people don't see things your way. Casinos don't either.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, this should end the conversation right here. You wrote:

"No one cares if YOU use win/loss goals. However, when you claim they make a difference in a person's expectation then you are lying."

Well, Arc, NO ONE ever said win goals or loss limits make a difference in a person's expectation. I never said it, Singer never said it. I don't think ANYONE ever said it. The only thing loss limits and win goals do is allow the player to have more control over what happens to them in the casino instead of just allowing the RNG to decide it for them. And that's the truth Arc, because even if you know perfect strategy and apply it each and every time, it still all depends on the RNG.

What I can't understand is why you think, for some reason, that the "math of the game" tells you not to employ loss limits or win goals and you somehow think that loss limits and win goals don't apply to you or anyone playing a positive expectation game? You have said for yourself that there is no guarantee that you will win on a positive expectation game yet you preach your "high probability" of winning? Well, just how high is it on a RANDOM game?

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, here's an example to prove my point.

What's the difference between these two scenarios. Player 1 goes to a casino and plays 10,000 hands. He wins or loses X amount of money. He's one of those folks you claim is an addict or whatever. Now we have Player 2. He goes to the casino with win and loss goals and ends up averaging around 1000 hands before hitting one of those goals. He goes to a casino 10 times. He wins or loses Y amount of money.

Is there any reason to believe that X is not equal to Y?
With a random distribution of cards why would you expect them to be different?

If you are honest you will say that there is no reason for them to be different. They have exactly the same odds of winning or losing over those 10,000 hands. All the win/loss goals did was stretch out the time that it took.

Arc, instead of Xs and Ys let's talk about it this way:

Player A goes to the casino and plays 10,000 hands and finishes the day down 0.5% on his 9/6 Jacks game.
Player B goes to the casino and on the fifth hand hits a royal for $4,000 and runs out the door instead of playing 9995 more hands.

Do that math for me, whatever it is.

[arcimede$]

Arc, instead of Xs and Ys let's talk about it this way:

Player A goes to the casino and plays 10,000 hands and finishes the day down 0.5% on his 9/6 Jacks game.
Player B goes to the casino and on the fifth hand hits a royal for $4,000 and runs out the door instead of playing 9995 more hands.

Do that math for me, whatever it is.

Silly nonsense. How about Player A goes to the casino and plays until he hits his loss limit of $1000 and leaves. He plays 2000 hands. Player B has the same result as player A through 2000 hands but continues to play and hits a $4,000 RF on his 2005th hand and then another one on his 3321st hand. Overall, player B comes home with $7,400 after 5,000 hands while player A loses $1,000.

You see how silly it is to make up scenarios when they are just one possible result. There's always an innumerable number of other scenarios that refute your one.

Now, why didn't you answer the questions? Are you hiding something?

[jatki]

Oh my god, arc believes fast food gravy is delicious, hehaw. Could it be that running it through the blender along with the turkey, stuffing, and potatoes made it edible?

alan you know arc isn't capable of realizing a scenario where it is looked at as a single visit, or more probably because he doesn't want to because it doesn't fit his everchanging story. I get your analogies and scenarios because its easy peasy. Arc wants you to be a liar and me to be Rob, only way he can handle the criticism and hardball questions. Please keep eliciting more from him. He doesn't accept the six-feet-under rule either.