question for math guys

[arcimede$]

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.

You've both said there's no reason a person can't keep hitting win goals and winning session after session have you not? What did you mean by this? Are you saying that you accidentally omitted mentioning all the losing sessions required to bring a game to a negative expectation?

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.

You just contradicted yourself. First you said "allow the player to have more control" and then you said "it still all depends on the RNG". If it all depends on the RNG what control have you provided with win/loss goals? The answer is none but I don't think you will ever accept reality. You don't want it to be true so you ignore the facts and end up contradicting yourself like some bumbling idiot.

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 ...

What I've told is the math of the game tells you IT DOESN'T MATTER. Pay attention. If you want to employ them that's fine, just don't think it will make a difference over any other method.

... 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?

The probability of winning (making any kind of profit) is based on the amount of the edge and increases as the number of hands increase. This is simple math, Alan. Since the probability of winning increases with more hands played why would you want to have any limits?

It's almost laughable that you thought you were making some kind of point by putting random in all caps. The randomness is key to our ability to compute the probabilities.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: "You just contradicted yourself. First you said "allow the player to have more control" and then you said "it still all depends on the RNG"."

There is no contradiction, Arc. In a random game, run by a random number generator, the only control a player has is to decide when to play and when to not play. That goes for negative expectation games as well as positive expectation games.

You continue to talk about probability of winning and you wrote "the probability of winning (making any kind of profit) is based on the amount of the edge and increases as the number of hands increase. This is simple math, Alan."

So? Does that tell you not to quit when you are ahead? Of course it doesn't. Even you said it's okay to leave with a profit. Does that tell you to keep playing when you are losing because you are destined to hit a big one? Of course it doesn't. You might never hit a big one even at a positive expectation game.

So what the heck are you talking about anyway with all of your "math talk"? It is meaningless when it comes to the question do you want to quit when you are ahead? And that is the only question. There are no side issues. It has nothing to do with the math of the game.

Singer -- and others -- have adopted a strategy, a plan that they want to leave when they have a win, or reached a win goal. The silliness is you trying to say that somehow the "math of video poker" says that is somehow wrong or not advisable or that you are missing out on some probabilities that you will keep winning.

You are preaching what amounts to rationalization of video poker addiction. Now I know why Frank Kneeland wanted to learn about Singer's system. Too bad he never followed up.

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote: "You just contradicted yourself. First you said "allow the player to have more control" and then you said "it still all depends on the RNG"."

There is no contradiction, Arc. In a random game, run by a random number generator, the only control a player has is to decide when to play and when to not play. That goes for negative expectation games as well as positive expectation games.

Actually, the biggest decisions are what to play and how to play. They determine your ER. After that the "when" is meaningless. You will see a random frequency of cards no matter when you play. These frequencies average out over time. That is what the math tells you. If you think you have some kind of control over those frequencies you are completely deluded.

You continue to talk about probability of winning and you wrote "the probability of winning (making any kind of profit) is based on the amount of the edge and increases as the number of hands increase. This is simple math, Alan."

So? Does that tell you not to quit when you are ahead? Of course it doesn't. Even you said it's okay to leave with a profit. Does that tell you to keep playing when you are losing because you are destined to hit a big one? Of course it doesn't. You might never hit a big one even at a positive expectation game.

Once again you wallow in possibilities. Since we don't know what is going to happen the best we can do is calculate the probabilities and play accordingly. I've never said a person can't quit at any time, ahead or behind. I'm telling you it doesn't matter over time as your results will tend towards the ER of your play. I realize you don't want this to be true. You want to believe you control your destiny. That is affecting your judgement.

So what the heck are you talking about anyway with all of your "math talk"? It is meaningless when it comes to the question do you want to quit when you are ahead? And that is the only question. There are no side issues. It has nothing to do with the math of the game.

Alan, everyone wants to quit when they are ahead. The problem is we don't get ahead all the time. Sometimes we all lose. That is a fact. Your unwillingness to accept reality is really quite amazing.

Singer -- and others -- have adopted a strategy, a plan that they want to leave when they have a win, or reached a win goal. The silliness is you trying to say that somehow the "math of video poker" says that is somehow wrong or not advisable or that you are missing out on some probabilities that you will keep winning.

I've never said any of those things. I've simply pointed out the "math" tells you it doesn't make any difference when you quit ... you will approach the ER of your play over time. It's interesting you keep trying to redefine what I've told you over and over again. One might think you never read any of my comments.

You are preaching what amounts to rationalization of video poker addiction. Now I know why Frank Kneeland wanted to learn about Singer's system. Too bad he never followed up.

Frank figured out there was no benefit in Singer's system. Frank kept telling you the same thing I've been telling you. You didn't listen to him either. Since you brought it up, I do think that "addiction" is playing a part in your thinking. You want to believe you can beat negative VP games which allows you to continue to play. What you are doing is rationalizing some magical plan where you can play and win. Now, that is a symptom of addiction.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, should I call you a liar for saying this? "Frank figured out there was no benefit in Singer's system. Frank kept telling you the same thing I've been telling you. You didn't listen to him either." Nah. I'm too much of a gentleman.

Frank never said there was no benefit in Rob's system.
Frank never told me anything that you say -- he never even criticized Rob's system.
Frank did tell me both in person over lunch and on the phone and through emails why he didn't comment any more about Rob's system, and he asked me to keep it confidential. But when I tell you that you are way off base I really mean you are way off base.

Now let's get back to the real issue. You wrote above: "I've simply pointed out the "math" tells you it doesn't make any difference when you quit...." Thank you. We're finished now.

So to everyone: It's okay to quit when you are ahead. The money you leave with is your money. Enjoy it until the next time you play.

[arcimede$]

Arc, should I call you a liar for saying this? "Frank figured out there was no benefit in Singer's system. Frank kept telling you the same thing I've been telling you. You didn't listen to him either." Nah. I'm too much of a gentleman.

Frank never said there was no benefit in Rob's system.
Frank never told me anything that you say -- he never even criticized Rob's system.

What Frank told you is exactly what I'm telling you. The facts. The game is random and the only thing you say about the future is related to probabilities. Of course, this is the same thing as telling you there is no benefit to Rob's system. He just said it in a nice way because Frank doesn't like to criticize individuals. However, it means exactly the same thing.

Now let's get back to the real issue. You wrote above: "I've simply pointed out the "math" tells you it doesn't make any difference when you quit...." Thank you. We're finished now.

So to everyone: It's okay to quit when you are ahead. The money you leave with is your money. Enjoy it until the next time you play.

Are we finished? Are you willing to admit that when you stop playing provides no benefit over time? That is the issue. I've been saying the same thing over and over. Do you now accept it?

[Alan Mendelson]

What Frank told you is exactly what I'm telling you.

That is a lie. Frank never said anything that comes close to what you said. One of the telling things he did say was that for the past 14 years he had never played with his own money and he would not play with his own money today. Telling? Indeed.

Are we finished? Are you willing to admit that when you stop playing provides no benefit over time? That is the issue. I've been saying the same thing over and over. Do you now accept it?

Arc, I don't really think you worded this statement correctly. When you stop playing does provide a benefit over time, if you stop at the point that you have a net profit. Do you want to restate your comment? I understand the point you are trying to make, but really, you can't see the point that I am trying to make -- and that is "over time" means nothing to someone who doesn't know when or even if they will ever play again. Recreational video poker players or gamblers in general cannot consider anything that is long-term because long-term is a meaningless concept for them. For you, for the casino, and for the "math guys" it is your holy grail. But for me or anyone else who sits down at a machine to play for an hour, or a weekend, long term means little. What matters is hitting the cash out button at the right time to maximize our return -- whether it be a profitable return (hitting the win goal), or minimizing a negative return (reaching your loss limit or stop-loss).

We really are in two different worlds. I only hope you can afford to play in yours.

[arcimede$]

That is a lie. Frank never said anything that comes close to what you said. One of the telling things he did say was that for the past 14 years he had never played with his own money and he would not play with his own money today. Telling? Indeed.

You ignored what Frank said before and you are trying to do it again. But it's not just Frank. It's every single math knowledgeable person. Alan, Frank told you the facts right here on your forum. Go back and read what he told you. Then tell me what he said. The fact is you can't repeat what he said because you didn't want to believe him. Just like now.

Arc, I don't really think you worded this statement correctly. When you stop playing does provide a benefit over time, if you stop at the point that you have a net profit. Do you want to restate your comment?

I've always said a win goal only matters if a person is never going to play again. Our discussion is about people who will play again. Otherwise who cares.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but really, you can't see the point that I am trying to make -- and that is "over time" means nothing to someone who doesn't know when or even if they will ever play again.

That is a very small minority of people. Those who care enough about VP to read forums and try to improve their play are the ones looking for information.

Recreational video poker players or gamblers in general cannot consider anything that is long-term because long-term is a meaningless concept for them.

It should be meaningless to everyone ... because it is meaningless.

For you, for the casino, and for the "math guys" it is your holy grail. But for me or anyone else who sits down at a machine to play for an hour, or a weekend, long term means little. What matters is hitting the cash out button at the right time to maximize our return ...

You were doing OK for awhile but now you are once again claiming that you can control your results. Can't be done. And notice how you weren't talking about someone who doesn't plan on playing again.

-- whether it be a profitable return (hitting the win goal), or minimizing a negative return (reaching your loss limit or stop-loss).

We really are in two different worlds. I only hope you can afford to play in yours.

No, we are both in the same world. The world is defined by the mathematics of random distributions. You want to escape that world but you can't. Your ideas are completely and totally flawed.

And, by fostering your ignorance on others that read this forum you're telling people there is a way to improve their results. When you do that you are leading them astray. That is why I have been attempting to educate you. But, you still don't want to learn. You are lost.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, Frank failed to do a few things which surprised me:

1. Meet with Rob to find out how the "system" works so he could evaluate it. He never did.
2. Publish an evaluation (he couldn't, he never learned it).
3. Told me that he never used his own money to play video poker over the last 14 years and only played with OPM (other people's money).

Further, he promised on videopoker.com to publish some sort of program or formula or creation to detect if a VP machine was not truly random. And that never happened either.

To his credit, he told me that the concept of "advantage play" was dead as he didn't know of any advantage plays left in any casino. And for that reason he would not play now and certainly would not use his own money to play. I suspect that the last of the advantage plays was when the M had those special progressives -- but they only lasted a few months -- and Frank wasn't using his own money to play there either.

I've been around a long time. And I've met a lot of talkers. Some deliver, and some find an excuse.

Now, to your credit, Arc, you stand your ground, and good for you. But for heaven sake, put your math theory aside for a minute and use your God-given common sense. As my father used to say about the stock market: "no one ever went broke selling a stock at a profit."

And I can apply that to video poker today when discussing win goals: "no one ever lost cashing out at a profit." And we can add to that when discussing loss limits: "No one ever went broke losing less than they could afford to lose."

That's how I look at things. I know you look at things differently. You look at probabilities. Okay. I think you're probably never going to see it my way.

By the way, where is Frank?

edited to add: You wrote "The world is defined by the mathematics of random distributions." And that is probably true. There probably is a bell curve of players who will leave when they hit a win goal.

[regnis]

This argument, as usual, is getting nowhere. In the world of gambling, the difference between winners and losers is primarily "money management". That includes almost all forms of gambling whether it is sports, horses, craps, poker, or dare I say VP. Many very knowledgeable gamblers, including my mentor, should have won, had all the tools and knowledge to win, but lacked money management skills which resulted in their losing.

The simplest form of money management is loss limits and win goals, exactly what Alan has been talking about. And what loss limits and win goals do is force the gambler from gambling too much (read long term here). Rather, it forces the gambler to be satisfied with a certain win goal, limit his losses on a bad day, and avoid the long destructive periods that define our compulsion to gamble.

Arci will never understand this as it is not based upon mathematical principals. That is why he probably doesn't seek other forms of gambling.

But any successful and knowledgeable gambler, particularly in my primary game--horse racing--will tell you that money management is what separates winners from losers.

[jatki]

This is a total hoot. Arc gets frustrated with facts that he's not only made himself look the stooge for getting caught lying about how much he plays, he's double dribbling around what a fellow named Frank said to Alan. In another way, he says he knows more about what Frank told Alan than Alan says what Frank told him! And wouldn't you know it, it's all about Rob. Isn't everything in arc's life all about Rob? Isn't that what forces him to lie so much (PLEASE arc, say you were also lying about that fast food gravy you fed your family). Let's make a movie about this, only how do you film a guy's dreams?

[jatki]

This argument, as usual, is getting nowhere. In the world of gambling, the difference between winners and losers is primarily "money management". That includes almost all forms of gambling whether it is sports, horses, craps, poker, or dare I say VP. Many very knowledgeable gamblers, including my mentor, should have won, had all the tools and knowledge to win, but lacked money management skills which resulted in their losing.

The simplest form of money management is loss limits and win goals, exactly what Alan has been talking about. And what loss limits and win goals do is force the gambler from gambling too much (read long term here). Rather, it forces the gambler to be satisfied with a certain win goal, limit his losses on a bad day, and avoid the long destructive periods that define our compulsion to gamble.

Arci will never understand this as it is not based upon mathematical principals. That is why he probably doesn't seek other forms of gambling.

But any successful and knowledgeable gambler, particularly in my primary game--horse racing--will tell you that money management is what separates winners from losers.

It has come to my attention, Regnis, that by saying anything about gambling compulsions and chasing longterm EV in the same sentence will turn a grumbler like arc into your everyday Thanksgiving Day fast food gravy buyer. Giggle giggle giggle.

[jatki]

Money management does deserve honorable mention here. I see what you mean about how a math crazed player is prone to criticize the concept because they can't get themselves to understand it. I've found that most of these people tell themselves its better to play all day regardless of results than to have any kind of a plan. Now if that's not the stuff of addicts, call me Pete.

As a converted former loser, I can tell you the most important lesson Singer taught me was how to stay away from getting any more cash than I walked in with if I lose, and to set solid, honest win goals for when to stop playing for my visits. When I think back on the numerous numerous times I was ahead a little or a lot, and still kept playing out of that compulsion you talked about, it makes me sick. I know I could have paid cash for a new dually.

[arcimede$]

Arc, Frank failed to do a few things which surprised me:

1. Meet with Rob to find out how the "system" works so he could evaluate it. He never did.
2. Publish an evaluation (he couldn't, he never learned it).
3. Told me that he never used his own money to play video poker over the last 14 years and only played with OPM (other people's money).

Alan, since Frank understands the math he has no reason to "evaluate" Singer's system to know whether it creates an advantage or not. It can't. It's as simple as that. I think he was trying to determine if it might reduce a person's overall play. As I've told you many times anything that reduces play on a negative machine is a good thing. However, with Singer's system you are essentially chasing losses which is a bad thing. I suspect he ended up viewing the latter problem as too big to overcome but as Frank always does, he won't say anything bad about anyone. So, he decided to say nothing at all.

In any event, that has nothing to do with winning or losing. There is no betting system that change the return of a game. That has been proven. Alan, do you understand what "proven" means?

To his credit, he told me that the concept of "advantage play" was dead as he didn't know of any advantage plays left in any casino. And for that reason he would not play now and certainly would not use his own money to play. I suspect that the last of the advantage plays was when the M had those special progressives -- but they only lasted a few months -- and Frank wasn't using his own money to play there either.

I suspect there's still a few plays out there. Frank is not going to advertise them, he's smarter than that. However, it may not be enough to generate the income that Frank needs to continue his lifestyle. It's a little different for retirees who have other sources of income.

Now, to your credit, Arc, you stand your ground, and good for you. But for heaven sake, put your math theory aside for a minute and use your God-given common sense. As my father used to say about the stock market: "no one ever went broke selling a stock at a profit."

But one heck of a lot of them lost money because they sold and the stock continued to rise. And, not all stocks go up after they are bought. So, did you have a point?

And I can apply that to video poker today when discussing win goals: "no one ever lost cashing out at a profit." And we can add to that when discussing loss limits: "No one ever went broke losing less than they could afford to lose."

I was hoping you'd say that. Both of my points above apply perfectly. There's no guarantee when you sit down at a machine that you will get ahead. In fact, the math guarantees that you won't always get ahead. So, the fact is many times you will find yourself losing money.

That's how I look at things. I know you look at things differently. You look at probabilities. Okay. I think you're probably never going to see it my way.

It isn't a matter of your way or my way. The math is the math. You can't overcome a negative return game with a betting system. That has been proven. Alan, this is not really a debate. It's you being stubborn despite absolute evidence that the math is correct.

edited to add: You wrote "The world is defined by the mathematics of random distributions." And that is probably true. There probably is a bell curve of players who will leave when they hit a win goal.

And lose when they don't. After all those sessions are added up they end up on the same bell curve as everyone else.

[arcimede$]

This argument, as usual, is getting nowhere. In the world of gambling, the difference between winners and losers is primarily "money management". That includes almost all forms of gambling whether it is sports, horses, craps, poker, or dare I say VP. Many very knowledgeable gamblers, including my mentor, should have won, had all the tools and knowledge to win, but lacked money management skills which resulted in their losing.

Money management is a useful topic. Because of the swings in any random game, and especially high variance games like VP, it is possible to have periods of losing even on positive return games. As such, one needs a bankroll to overcome those swings. If a player plays above their bankroll they can go broke. But, that has nothing to do with the current discussion of whether a betting system like win/loss goals can overcome a negative game.

The simplest form of money management is loss limits and win goals, exactly what Alan has been talking about. And what loss limits and win goals do is force the gambler from gambling too much (read long term here). Rather, it forces the gambler to be satisfied with a certain win goal, limit his losses on a bad day, and avoid the long destructive periods that define our compulsion to gamble.

It may help delay losses but that is not the same same making sure one has a large enough bankroll to overcome the swings. Two different topics.

One simply has to understand that you can't change the hands that you are dealt by hitting a cash-out button once in awhile. Look at it this way. Assume a gambler has an insufficient bankroll and gambled 100,000 hands across a week and loses it all. Now, consider another gambler who is dealt exactly the same hands but uses win/loss goals. He ends up cashing out now and then going home a winner occasionally. However, over many months he ends up at exactly the same place ... losing all his money. You can't make a machine deal you different hands. The probability is exactly the same for both players to see this same sequence of hands.

Arci will never understand this as it is not based upon mathematical principals. That is why he probably doesn't seek other forms of gambling.

Actually, it is covered by mathematical principles. Just because you don't understand the math does not mean it doesn't apply to you.

But any successful and knowledgeable gambler, particularly in my primary game--horse racing--will tell you that money management is what separates winners from losers.

Most horse players are totally clueless about math? Is that your point?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote this: "I've always said a win goal only matters if a person is never going to play again. Our discussion is about people who will play again. Otherwise who cares."

Sorry buddy, but even those of us who will return to a casino in the future care very much if we leave with a win each and every time we go. Those little wins can add up, just as little losses add up. You have to manage your money -- as others have pointed out. Why can't you accept that?

And about my conversation with Frank. I'm sorry... I forgot you were sitting at the table with us, and I forgot you were listening to the conversations on the extension phone, and I forgot you were copied on the emails.

Actually, I'm going to clue you in on something. Frank and I never discussed Rob's strategy or system or the math behind it. Do you want to know why? Because Frank said he wanted to do his own independent investigation of it, and he didn't want other people to influence how he looked at Rob's system. And guess what? Frank never followed through. Rob extended many invitations to Frank to explain to him in detail what he does and when he does it. He even offered to have Frank watch him play. It never happened.

However, that is not the reason Frank never published anything about Rob's system. The reason for that is confidential per Frank's request. By the way, Arc, the "math" had very little to do with what Frank was looking at.

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote this: "I've always said a win goal only matters if a person is never going to play again. Our discussion is about people who will play again. Otherwise who cares."

Sorry buddy, but even those of us who will return to a casino in the future care very much if we leave with a win each and every time we go. Those little wins can add up, just as little losses add up. You have to manage your money -- as others have pointed out. Why can't you accept that?

I've always accepted money management principles. And, we all want to leave the casinos with more money than we came with. I've never argued with any of that. The problem is you jump from there into the la la land of your fantasies. Win goals/losses do not change anyone's expectation. They do not turn losers into winners. They do not change the frequencies of cards dealt to you. Why can't you accept that?

And about my conversation with Frank. I'm sorry... I forgot you were sitting at the table with us, and I forgot you were listening to the conversations on the extension phone, and I forgot you were copied on the emails.

And, it appears you forgot I understand the math and I read Frank's comments. I know exactly what he believed because he told both of us in his comments. You kept arguing with him. I already knew he was right. Are you now claiming he said something different about the math in personal conversations? I call BS.

Actually, I'm going to clue you in on something. Frank and I never discussed Rob's strategy or system or the math behind it. Do you want to know why? Because Frank said he wanted to do his own independent investigation of it, and he didn't want other people to influence how he looked at Rob's system. And guess what? Frank never followed through. Rob extended many invitations to Frank to explain to him in detail what he does and when he does it. He even offered to have Frank watch him play. It never happened.

I don't need to watch someone buying an object for 47 cents to know that the correct change they receive from a dollar is 53 cents. Only an idiot would claim the amount of change was different. But, that is what you are doing if you claim win/loss goals can change your expectation.

However, that is not the reason Frank never published anything about Rob's system. The reason for that is confidential per Frank's request. By the way, Arc, the "math" had very little to do with what Frank was looking at.

Which is what I said. Frank knew the math long before he looked at Singer's system.

[jatki]

From what I read arc about what Frank told Alan which is not theory or any other fairy tale like you're always quoting, Frank said he hasn't played with his own money for was it 15 years? I think that's funny, because here's one of your idol/hero AP's who looks like either he went broke playing your way, or used other people's money to play somehow because he knew your method is for the dogs and losers.

It is all very funny, and the more you post the bigger the hole you're digging gets.

Edit: I also have enjoyed watching you make believe you were at that meeting between Alan and Frank. What is it, that fastfood gravy and instant smashed potatoes not settling in right?

[redietz]

If anyone has noticed, I pretty much have stopped posting. It's pointless and embarrassing. Alan, I have a hard time believing that you believe the stuff you're writing. You're committed to being a shill for either Rob or the casinos or both. Arci, your patience is so off-the-charts --- why do you waste your time with these dudes?

Alan's a guy who's been playing at Harrah's his whole life, for God's sakes -- that should be the big red flag that, gamblingwise, he doesn't know what he's doing or talking about. I'll do the footwork to find out how/why Rob left Gaming Today next month, but c'mon, Gaming Today is a promotional shill mag for tourists. Getting published in GT is not the best resume for gambling expertise.

The best service one can render to anyone reading these forums is to not respond to these dudes so they don't do any further damage to the public. I think that was Frank's angle.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz, just what is it that you can't accept? the value of quitting when ahead?? is that it?? because that's what this is all about. No one is arguing math, except for Arc and perhaps you, who think there is some magic in the math that negates the wisdom of quitting when ahead.

Frankly what is the problem that you and Arc are having about these long winded explanations when all the rest of us are saying is that when you quit when ahead you quit with money in your pocket?

[jatki]

In other words redetz, you believe Alan is a dummy. Have you seen his resume or history? On the other hand, you say you're a gambling consultant to high rollers and you play 25c videopoker. That says it all. And what's wrong with having been a Harrahs player over the years? Your hero Bob Dancer says he's been 7stars there his whole career. Care to explain?

Why did Singer leave Gambling Today? Wasn't that years ago, and who cares now? I think he said he replaced Bob Dancer. Find out why he left while you're at it and report back.

Arc has patience alright. That's why he loses it with insults and calling anyone who disagrees with him names, and why he's so disrespectful of the forum's host. I wonder if that fastfood Thanksgiving Yummy gravy has anything to do with it. Could be, but I more suspect it's what Singer tells us about him, with his boredom requiring neverending controversial discussions just to fill in all the time. That's also the definition of a troll.