Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 180

Thread: question for math guys

  1. #1
    Ok--we have discussed the fact that you feel (correctly) that the special plays have a negative return and will cost future spins (unless I get lucky on a special play). But we also discussed that I usually play on a time table, so my number of spins on any day are set. I leave at 4:00 so any spins I may have lost through special plays would not have occurred. And since I am also on a time table the next time and the next time, I will never get to those lost spins until I drop dead in the casino and then it won't matter.

    So again, and I'm not trying to goad you, but I don't see where I've lost anything. I can never attain long term and get those spins, because I leave at a certain time on the clock, and I have never run out of spins and said "I wish I had those 3 spins that Singer cost me".

    The other question is how many spins does a special play cost. Is it 1, 3, .28% of 1? What is it--- because I guess you could say when the clock hit 4 and I left and cashed out I would have had another dollar or 2. If so, I'd rather take the shot at a few thousand if it arises.

  2. #2
    If you don't play the hands then you leave with slightly more credits than you would have otherwise. Over time these credits add up to real money. Once again it's helpful to view VP has one life long session. You'll only know your final results when you quit playing permanently. If you can look at it this way it demonstrates more clearly that the special plays have little meaning.

    As for cost, it varies considerably. Some special plays have a small cost, others are pretty big. If you look at the difference in return between the special play and the optimal play that gives you a measure of the cost. Keep in mind that the cost is multiplied by the fact that you will win part of those credits back when they are played (on average), and then part of the remaining ones, etc.

    It's also helpful to understand the pure odds. When holding a pair the odds of hitting a quad are 360:1. Before any hand the odds of hitting a quad are 420:1. As you can see there's not much difference. As a result, gaining just 2 hands greatly increases the total number of quads you will hit over time.

  3. #3
    Here's an example that may help. Let's say the difference between the special play and the optimal play was 5 credits. Since we are considering the amount of play gained when not hitting a big winner we would multiply that value by around 80% for DDB (and 90% for games like JOB or BP).

    Taking 5*.80 = 4 credits .. 4*.80 = 3.2 .. 3.2*.80 = 2.6 .. 2.6*.80 = 2.1 .. 2.1*.80 = 1.7 .. 1.7*.80 = 1.3 .. 1.3*.80 = 1.0 ...

    Adding all these credits (5+4+3.2+2.6+2.1+1.7+1.3+1+...) =~ 25 credits. In other words, you get around 5 times the play you might think by looking only at the number of credits.

    Therefore, if we look at the case of holding a pair as a special play then you have a 360:1 shot at the quad. If the optimal hold gave you 5 additional credits you divide 425 by the 5 extra hands giving you an 85:1 shot at the quad with the credits you gained.

    This is why I have repeatedly stated that many of the special plays actually reduce the chances of hitting a quad. And, if you never play those credits than you end up with those credits in your pocket.

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    If you don't play the hands then you leave with slightly more credits than you would have otherwise. Over time these credits add up to real money. Once again it's helpful to view VP has one life long session. You'll only know your final results when you quit playing permanently. If you can look at it this way it demonstrates more clearly that the special plays have little meaning.
    Arc, I am not trying to be argumentative here, but this is the "problem" which separates you from those who might make a "special play" whether they are Singer followers, or just people who "take chances" when they play video poker and don't even know who Rob Singer is.

    And with all respect to Rob -- there are people who play video poker who have no idea who you are, and yet, make your "special plays" for pretty much the same reasons you make them -- to maximize the opportunity for a big win based on what is presented to them "here" and "now."

    The classic example is when players get two pair in double double bonus such as KK55X, with X being a card of no consequence. Correct strategy is to hold both pairs, yet many DDB players will hold only the paying pair -- the kings -- rationalizing it this way: the pair of kings pays the same as holding the kings and the fives, but by holding only the kings I give myself the chance to make quads.

    Let's look at their rationalization from the point of view of correct strategy: they are actually giving up a better chance of drawing a full house by this, and drawing quad kings is the long shot. But for the "occasional player" (recreational player) the long term is not the issue -- but the idea of having the opportunity for drawing quads while not giving up "a paying hand" (the kings) is the issue.

    This is also why players who have no idea who Rob Singer is when dealt AQ or AK or AJ off suit in Jacks or Better or Bonus Poker might hold only the Ace trying to improve their chances for a royal or quad aces. Players on multi line games also rationalize that on a fifty play screen or a 100 hand screen that their chances for royals and quads improve dramatically for doing this.

    Again, they are wrong -- but they don't look at what long term math says. They see it only as their opportunity "here" and "now."

    Even when Rob presented his special plays to me in the videos -- and you can see it here on the website -- he carefully points out that in the long term his special plays have lower returns over the long run. He is not trying to cover that up. But like so many players in casinos concerned with the "here" and "now" he is looking at the chance to maximize his hand "here" and "now."

    And that is why this great divide will continue, Arc. You look at long term -- and the others, whether they are Rob's followers or never heard of Rob, only look at the cards in the hand they have and want to go for the "big win."

    And with that said -- let me offer the unknowing players who do just the opposite, because we have all witnessed this as well. In fact, when I first started playing I made the same mistake: dealt a flush or a straight with four to the royal, holding the straight or holding the flush. The very first time I played video poker (I think the game was Jacks or Better and I don't clearly remember because it was so long ago), I held the flush. Players on either side of me were saying "go for the royal, go for the royal" but I reasoned that "a flush in the hand is worth a royal in the bush." I would never make that mistake now, yet I see players doing it all the time.

    In fact just a couple of weeks ago at Rincon a player on the $5 DDB with a dealt flush with four to the royal was ARGUING with his wife that he should hold the flush because he said "I'll never get the royal." He probably based that on the experience we've all had -- not drawing that 1/47 royal card -- and so he was settling for the flush. It's wrong, of course, but he was concerned with the "here" and "now."

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    Ok--we have discussed the fact that you feel (correctly) that the special plays have a negative return and will cost future spins (unless I get lucky on a special play). But we also discussed that I usually play on a time table, so my number of spins on any day are set. I leave at 4:00 so any spins I may have lost through special plays would not have occurred. And since I am also on a time table the next time and the next time, I will never get to those lost spins until I drop dead in the casino and then it won't matter.

    So again, and I'm not trying to goad you, but I don't see where I've lost anything. I can never attain long term and get those spins, because I leave at a certain time on the clock, and I have never run out of spins and said "I wish I had those 3 spins that Singer cost me".

    The other question is how many spins does a special play cost. Is it 1, 3, .28% of 1? What is it--- because I guess you could say when the clock hit 4 and I left and cashed out I would have had another dollar or 2. If so, I'd rather take the shot at a few thousand if it arises.
    regnis,

    Even if we are not all in agreement that no single person can ever reach the "long term", we do all agree (Rob and arcimede$ included) that the casino itself is the ultimate "advantage player" and can theoretically reach as close to the EV on any machine as is possible. Agreed?

    Well, isn't the eventual EV on any machine the sum total of all of our individual "short term" plays? I've asked this question a few times now, and no one seems to want to address it. There is no system that can ensure the short term sessions you play will be consistently profitable on a negative EV machine when the sum total of all sessions played on that machine produce a negative EV.

    On the other thread, Rob says his system of:

    1. Using special plays 5% of the time.
    2. Setting win and loss limits.
    3. Recognizing when a machine was in a cold cycle and changing machines
    4. Moving up in limits when losses mounted.
    5. Not tipping casino service staff.
    6. Getting consistently lucky.
    7. Having a sufficient bankroll.
    8. Always doing what you said you would do before sitting down.

    could make you a net long term winner on any negative EV machine. The only parameter here that is specific to video poker is #1... his special plays. He has said that he knows his special plays result in a lower long term return, but we are supposed to believe that these special plays earned him a million dollar net profit over 10 years?

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    Even if we are not all in agreement that no single person can ever reach the "long term", we do all agree (Rob and arcimede$ included) that the casino itself is the ultimate "advantage player" and can theoretically reach as close to the EV on any machine as is possible. Agreed?
    What you wrote here is true, but I think Arc's position is that it is possible for a player to, in effect, have results that mimic the long term as well. That's the "rub." Arc, and I think redietz also, can base their play on the "long term" thinking that the "long term" applies to them, while others reject the concept that their play can ever mimic the "long term."

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    On the other thread, Rob says his system...

    could make you a net long term winner on any negative EV machine... He has said that he knows his special plays result in a lower long term return, but we are supposed to believe that these special plays earned him a million dollar net profit over 10 years?
    Let's not put too much emphasis on the "special plays." Rob says he uses special plays 5% of the time, and I think if we press Rob that "5%" figure might not be exactly right. But even if you accept the 5% figure, that still leaves Rob playing "conventional video poker" 95% of the time. Now, use that 95% of conventional play along with the other elements:

    2. Setting win and loss limits.
    3. Recognizing when a machine was in a cold cycle and changing machines
    4. Moving up in limits when losses mounted.
    5. Not tipping casino service staff.
    6. Getting consistently lucky.
    7. Having a sufficient bankroll.
    8. Always doing what you said you would do before sitting down.



    And when you do add that all up, perhaps it's not so extraordinary for a player who, for the most part, is playing $10 video poker?

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    What you wrote here is true, but I think Arc's position is that it is possible for a player to, in effect, have results that mimic the long term as well. That's the "rub." Arc, and I think redietz also, can base their play on the "long term" thinking that the "long term" applies to them, while others reject the concept that their play can ever mimic the "long term."
    So Alan, do you actually believe Rob's special plays result in a lower return for the player and therefore profit the casino in the long term but result in a higher return and profit the players in the short term?

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    So Alan, do you actually believe Rob's special plays result in a lower return for the player and therefore profit the casino in the long term but result in a higher return and profit the players in the short term?
    I have no idea. As I said before, I used what could be described as special plays only TWICE and once it worked, and once it didn't make a difference.

  10. #10
    There is no long term, there is no short term. It is all a continuum. That's why I like to use the phrase "over time". Every decision has a small effect that adds up over time.

    As for Alan's long essay on people going for big winners ... that is not the issue ... never has been. I wish Alan would quit trying to claim it has anything to do with the debate. The issue is certain people claim they are MORE SUCCESSFUL making these kind of plays. That is utter nonsense and disputes the math. I don't care how anyone plays ... Alan, Rob, ANYONE. You can play however you choose.

    I do care when people try to convince other people that those poor plays will improve their results.

    Repeat that 1000 times, Alan, until you finally understand.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    The issue is certain people claim they are MORE SUCCESSFUL making these kind of plays. That is utter nonsense and disputes the math.
    Okay, Arc, if that is the issue, tell us why it is "nonsense" and why you can't come out ahead of the "expected return" ?? If Rob Singer won a million dollars on negative expectation games and there was only a 0.3% chance he'd do it, what's so bad about that?

    Right now, when I walk into a casino, I think my chance of winning is zero unless I get real lucky. I don't have any illusions that the math is going to make me a winner.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Let's not put too much emphasis on the "special plays." Rob says he uses special plays 5% of the time, and I think if we press Rob that "5%" figure might not be exactly right. But even if you accept the 5% figure, that still leaves Rob playing "conventional video poker" 95% of the time. Now, use that 95% of conventional play along with the other elements:

    2. Setting win and loss limits.
    3. Recognizing when a machine was in a cold cycle and changing machines
    4. Moving up in limits when losses mounted.
    5. Not tipping casino service staff.
    6. Getting consistently lucky.
    7. Having a sufficient bankroll.
    8. Always doing what you said you would do before sitting down.



    And when you do add that all up, perhaps it's not so extraordinary for a player who, for the most part, is playing $10 video poker?
    Eddie, listen to Alan please. I didn't win all that money and the pictures of all those big winning hits were not mostly because of making special plays that worked. Some winning sessions were/most winning sessions weren't. It is the overall combination of ALL aspects that makes SPS such a successful approach.

    Any mathematical analyses of the special plays cannot be accurately presented by simply approximating how often quads should hit vs. how many hands might be lost because they're made. To do it right means taking into account the value of the quads that are being sought out, not just the fact that it is a quad. It may be too complex for some, but I developed the plays knowing most quads SPS chases pay 400, 600, 800, 1200, or 2000 credits. Also, it may be impossible for some to comprehend, but the entire strategy was structured within the playing parameters of a single session being played TODAY. Of course any off-the-cuff long term-driven analysis of special plays will yield vastly skewed results. I used to look at everything about vp with long term glasses. Then I woke up, because none of us will ever play anything close to that, and the benchmark is how much play a casino experiences to actually own that advantage over every player. Therein also lies the fallacy of the AP argument. The math books reflect the edges in the casinos and only approximate the case for individuals--who because of their own failings cannot combine all their life's play in order to even tie what the casinos hold.

    Eddie, re: the eventual EV on the machines we play: the return of course is from the players, but the EV is the EV. The machines I've played may at the time I play them, show an internal return of maybe 92% for instance. But on about 85% of the machines I've played, I've vastly improved on that because I've won. That probably has.little overall effect on the overall return though, because -EV games attract the full spectrum of players.

    It is important to note: there's been quite a few posters over the past year or so who've identified actual success at the machines because of making some of these special plays. But where has all the criticism come from? Yup, from THEORY....as in IT SHOULDN'T'T HAPPEN!
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 11-11-2012 at 11:28 AM.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Eddie, listen to Alan please. I didn't win all that money and the pictures of all those big winning hits were not mostly because of making special plays that worked. Some winning sessions were/most winning sessions weren't. It is the overall combination of ALL aspects that makes SPS such a successful approach.

    Any mathematical analyses of the special plays cannot be accurately presented by simply approximating how often quads should hit vs. how many hands might be lost because they're made. To do it right means taking into account the value of the quads that are being sought out, not just the fact that it is a quad. It may be too complex for some, but I developed the plays knowing most quads SPS chases pay 400, 600, 800, 1200, or 2000 credits. Also, it may be impossible for some to comprehend, but the entire strategy was structured within the playing parameters of a single session being played TODAY. Of course any off-the-cuff long term-driven analysis of special plays will yield vastly skewed results. I used to look at everything about vp with long term glasses. Then I woke up, because none of us will ever play anything close to that, and the benchmark is how much play a casino experiences to actually own that advantage over every player. Therein also lies the fallacy of the AP argument. The math books reflect the edges in the casinos and only approximate the case for individuals--who because of their own failings cannot combine all their life's play in order to even tie what the casinos hold.

    Eddie, re: the eventual EV on the machines we play: the return of course is from the players, but the EV is the EV. The machines I've played may at the time I play them, show an internal return of maybe 92% for instance. But on about 85% of the machines I've played, I've vastly improved on that because I've won. That probably has.little overall effect on the overall return though, because -EV games attract the full spectrum of players.
    Thanks for your reply Rob. I do not consider you to be a "con man" or a "scam artist" because you've stated that you are not profitting from teaching your strategies. I don't even play video poker. I would like to hear your explanation as to why your strategies would not work on a slot machine or any other casino game.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by a2a3dseddie View Post
    Thanks for your reply Rob. I do not consider you to be a "con man" or a "scam artist" because you've stated that you are not profitting from teaching your strategies. I don't even play video poker. I would like to hear your explanation as to why your strategies would not work on a slot machine or any other casino game.
    I've only concentrated on how to win at video poker. I can't believe there's any way to beat a slot machine since there are no choices a player can make. Like with Obama, it's all HOPE, people are drawn in by phoney promises and false statements, and it usually doesn't pan out for the customer. There very well may be ways to beat other casino games. It's just going to take someone with the same passion I had to develop a way, if it's even possible.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Okay, Arc, if that is the issue, tell us why it is "nonsense" and why you can't come out ahead of the "expected return" ?? If Rob Singer won a million dollars on negative expectation games and there was only a 0.3% chance he'd do it, what's so bad about that? v
    It's .03% but that's not the point. It isn't about possibilities, it's about probabilities. Anyone claiming you can win over time on negative games is claiming they can overcome the probabilities. A few might, but the vast majority won't. For a person who's so worried about words like "scam" I find it amazing you think that just because there's a slight possibility that a person might win it's all roses. The truth is you are supporting idiotic nonsense.

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Right now, when I walk into a casino, I think my chance of winning is zero unless I get real lucky. I don't have any illusions that the math is going to make me a winner.
    Anyone who thinks that way is an idiot when it comes to understanding math.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    ... people are drawn in by phoney promises and false statements.
    Best description of Rob Singer I've ever seen.

  17. #17
    Earlier, I wrote: Right now, when I walk into a casino, I think my chance of winning is zero unless I get real lucky. I don't have any illusions that the math is going to make me a winner.

    To which Arc responded:

    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    Anyone who thinks that way is an idiot when it comes to understanding math.
    This brings to mind the famous comment by Steve Wynn on 60 Minutes:


  18. #18
    You think arci's ever gonna say Steve Wynn knows more about casino gambling than him? That's like admitting sitting home for 10 hours a day at the computer burns more calories after 20 years of such excitement than Wilt the Stilt burnt up with his 20,000 ladies.

  19. #19
    Some of us are simply going to treat each casino visit as a game, and try to win that game. And tho it may (in theory) have some affect on long term results, if you can win that game, that is good. Alan has stated this in his own way 100 times.

    And if I take a chance or 2 to make the big hit to get even or leave with the big win, the few dollars it cost me are immaterial to me. And yes, over 20 years that adds up, but those few dollars would have just gone to starbucks or burger king on the way home, not into some long term investment account.

    So Arci is right about the math--but only as it applies to long term professional play--not recreational which is what most of us are there for.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post

    So Arci is right about the math--but only as it applies to long term professional play--not recreational which is what most of us are there for.
    Excellent.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •