Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 180

Thread: question for math guys

  1. #21
    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.
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Excellent.
    I've often wondered how people can be presented with absolute proven facts and yet claim they are wrong. What is it that goes through their minds that convinces them that reality is not to be believed? One can only wonder.

  2. #22
    BTW, did anyone notice that Wynn contradicted himself in that interview? I thought not.

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Excellent.
    What would be funny to see is a discussion about advantage play between Wynn & arci: the guy who says he writes nothing but proven theotetical facts, vs. the guy who HAS them

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    I've often wondered how people can be presented with absolute proven facts and yet claim they are wrong. What is it that goes through their minds that convinces them that reality is not to be believed? One can only wonder.
    What are the facts that are in dispute?

    And would you mind pointing out how Steve Wynn contradicted himself?

  5. #25
    Give him time....he needs to fire up those computers and do as many quick Internet searches as he can before answering. This is his specialty--making assertions and hoping no one takes him to task. Let's see what he comes up with.

  6. #26
    Rob, the thing with Arc is that he continues to persist that you are saying 2+2=5 as an analogy for you saying the math doesn't work or that you can beat the math. But you and I both know that you are not challenging the math at all. You are simply saying if you play differently you can come out ahead of what the math of the game says you will get.

    I don't understand how Arc makes the connection that "playing differently" is the same as saying 2+2=5 or that the math of the game is wrong, or that you can beat the math.

    You are not beating the math but you are playing differently so that you come out ahead of what the math says you should get if you play the "optimum hands" or optimum strategy.

    Do I have that right?

  7. #27
    So does the casino know who the recreational player is and who the professional is? Do casinos make you wear nametags? What difference does it make?

    I mean, what you're describing is a population that "doesn't mind losing" in recreational players and a population that "minds losing" in professionals. So who wants to be a recreational player? And why would you want to be a recreational player?

  8. #28
    Why be a recreational player in a casino? Probably for the same reason people go sky diving... for the thrill of it. Except in the casino I don't have to worry about being splattered on the ground.

    The casino doesn't care who is playing the games... recreational or pro players, as long as it feels it has the edge. If you are a good card counter, chances are the casino will not let you play at its blackjack tables. I've been asked to leave craps tables because I showed an ability to throw the dice that the casinos didn't like. Bob Dancer says he has been excluded from certain promotions involving video poker. And this is all legal on the part of the casinos, because they can choose who they do business with.

    So, redietz, did you have a point you were trying to make?

  9. #29
    You have it EXACTLY right. His issue is with what THEORY says, and theory-becoming-reality only applies to to the casinos over the long term because they experience the amount of play required for that. My strategy was designed specifically with ONLY a single session in mind each and every time. AP's have no choice but to reject that because they want to believe that results are ONLY a function of an all-inclusive accounting of what happens from birth to death, and as such, they falsely believe that constitutes what the long term is all about. They cannot and will not understand that iff you win today on a -ev machine, you can win tomorrow and the day after and the day after that, etc. On the one hand they claim it's so possible to beat the game today, but they have no concept that it can happen over time. Someone like Dancer sells this type of thinking so his vested interest won't allow him to ever repeat the real truth about playing vp in public. Someone like arci, otoh, knows better, but he's simply trying to find things to occupy his time and mind, and the "optimal" way to do that is by tossing out theories and assertions just to create discussion.

  10. #30
    Yes, my point is that you're trying to win while being a "recreational player," whatever that is supposed to be, by using some techniques that somehow circumvent probability. You act as if there should be some alternative methodology (from AP play) for recreational players that can result in winning. Why do you think such a thing would exist? It's like having cancer, and not wanting to use to radiation and chemo, because they're harsh and no fun, so you go off in a homeopathic direction. It's voodoo.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Yes, my point is that you're trying to win while being a "recreational player," whatever that is supposed to be, by using some techniques that somehow circumvent probability. You act as if there should be some alternative methodology (from AP play) for recreational players that can result in winning. Why do you think such a thing would exist? It's like having cancer, and not wanting to use to radiation and chemo, because they're harsh and no fun, so you go off in a homeopathic direction. It's voodoo.
    Whoa Nellie. Who are you addressing this comment to? Not to me, I hope, because I play the way Grochowski and Dancer and the "books" say. Unfortunately, I don't have "positive expectation games" available for me to play on.

    Oh... do I like the idea that Rob says "quit when you reach a win goal"? Of course I do. Why don't Dancer and Grochowski say that? Or perhaps they do, but I missed it.

    Oh... do I like the idea of holding the three aces and dropping a kicker when dealt AAA4 in triple double bonus? Yeah, I do. It is one of Singer's "special plays" but I would rather have two shots at quad aces for $4,000 than one shot at $20,000 at the level I play at. Does it happen often? Honestly, I only made that special play ONCE and it made no difference... the three aces did not improve.

    Oh... do I like the idea of holding three aces in a full house in Bonus poker? I always hold the full house with three aces in bonus poker, except ONE TIME I elected to hold the three aces because I really need quads to dig me out of a hole. And I got the fourth ace. It was a wonderful feeling to get that $2,000 payoff because it bailed me out that night.

    So let me ask you a question, redietz: must everyone who goes to a casino be a professional, and play like a professional? Are you obsessed with making the proper casino play or else you will be burned at the stake for witchcraft?

  12. #32
    All gambling is an attempt to deviate from the expected loss. No one questions the math. But to think you can grind it out on a negative game is worse than trying to win in a shorter duration of time because of the ebbs and flows. Why you and Arci take that as a personal affront I don't know. 2+2 still = 4. You should be the first to agree that you can't grind out a negative game. So if being a recreational player means playing short term and taling a win and leaving, call me a recreational player. That doesn't mean I can't use or don't know proper strategy; and that doesn't mean I don't know that Rob's or my special plays go against the math.

    So again, no one is questioning the math or the probability. But since we don't have the blessing of Arci's positive expectation games here in Chicago, we can only play a negative game and therefore try to quit while ahead before the math police catch up with us.

    And just so you know, we recently completed the standard testing for math and reading in the Chicago Public School system---400,000 kids. And a small majority of Chicago Public school kids agree that 2+2 =4------but only by a small margin of 52-48.

  13. #33
    Redietz believes you're listening to me Alan because I've actually done what he claims, via theory of course, can't be done and wasn't supposed to happen, and I know it will be the same for anybody who plays exactly the same.. AP's also will never either try to win using my strategy, or watch me do it over the number of sessions they want to believe it will take for me to prove it works--and neither do they want to fully KNOW how it works....case in point: arci. He claims to have run simulations yet has no more than 70% of the strategy knowledge in order to do it properly. And why do you think Frank ran away from seeing it work at the machines? THESE AP'S ARE ALL AFRAID IT WILL WORK BEFORE THEIR UNBELIEVING EYES, AND THEY WON'T KNOW HOW THEIR ON-TILT LIVES COULD EVER PROCESS--THEN LIVE WITH--THAT!
    Last edited by Rob.Singer; 11-12-2012 at 03:32 PM.

  14. #34
    I love recreational players. I need recreational players. Recreational players subsidize me.

  15. #35
    How do recreational players subsidize you unless you are the casino? And recreational players probably play less than the AP crowd and probably have smaller losses. Just look at Dancer. He can lose more playing for one car than a thousand recreatinal players lose during a three day weekend.

    Frankly I don't know why you have a 2X4 on your shoulder over recreational players who aren't as committed as you are to doing things so perfectly. I'd wager that recreational players have a more enjoyable time than you have in a casino.

  16. #36
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    What are the facts that are in dispute?
    The continual claims that using win goals can beat a negative game. How many times do I have to repeat this?

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    And would you mind pointing out how Steve Wynn contradicted himself?
    He claims players never win unless they get lucky and then he states that players never win period. Both can't be true. Obviously he was just generalizing but one wonders why Alan posted this video. Is he trying to tell us that Singer must be a liar? Only possible reason I could determine.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 11-13-2012 at 01:57 AM.

  17. #37
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    All gambling is an attempt to deviate from the expected loss. No one questions the math. But to think you can grind it out on a negative game is worse than trying to win in a shorter duration of time because of the ebbs and flows. Why you and Arci take that as a personal affront I don't know. 2+2 still = 4. You should be the first to agree that you can't grind out a negative game.
    If you rephrase that statement then we totally agree. There's a high probability you will not win on a negative machine over time.

    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    So if being a recreational player means playing short term and taling a win and leaving, call me a recreational player. That doesn't mean I can't use or don't know proper strategy; and that doesn't mean I don't know that Rob's or my special plays go against the math.
    There is no such thing as short term for a regular gambler.

    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    So again, no one is questioning the math or the probability. But since we don't have the blessing of Arci's positive expectation games here in Chicago, we can only play a negative game and therefore try to quit while ahead before the math police catch up with us.
    Da plane, da plane. This is where you go off the rails. No one can count on getting ahead. Over time all of your play must adhere to the same mathematical principles. You have a high probability of losing on a negative machine. It makes no difference when you start or stop. This is where you are claiming you can make 2+2=5.

    PS. Are you sure there's no positive games in the Chicago area?

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    The continual claims that using win goals can beat a negative game. How many times do I have to repeat this?
    I guess we are going to have to go over it again and again until you realize that "negative games" have nothing to do with walking away with winnings. For some reason, you cannot conceive of someone walking away with a profit. Is this because you can't or never have walked away with a profit? The "expected return" on a game does not tell you if you are going to win or lose when you actually play the game. And if you are ahead and decide to leave -- for one session, two sessioins, or more, you will be a winner. You just can't accept that, can you Arc?

    Originally Posted by arcimede$ View Post
    He claims players never win unless they get lucky and then he states that players never win period. Both can't be true. Obviously he was just generalizing but one wonders why Alan posted this video. Is he trying to tell us that Singer must be a liar? Only possible reason I could determine.
    No, Arc, he never said "players never win period." Why don't you listen again to the video. Here is a transcript:

    Q: The only way to win in a casino?
    A: Is to own won, unless you're very lucky.

    Narration: And he says even when people are lucky they usually gamble away their winnings.

    Q: You have never known in your entire life a gambler who comes here and wins big and walks away?
    A: Never.
    Q: You know nobody, hardly, that over the stretch of time is ahead?
    A: No.

    Well, Arc, that is quite a difference from your statement that "he states that players never win period."

  19. #39
    When Steve Wynn said the "only way to win in a casino is to own one unless you're very lucky" he may have been referring to huge slot machine jackpot winners involving millions of dollars (such as the Megabucks progressive slot network). This would be a life-changing sum for many ordinary gamblers and some of them will have the wherewithal to know they were struck by lightning and to treat the winnings responsibly for the rest of their lives.

    Isn't it interesting at all that Wynn's management made absolutely sure to never have any 100% payback VP at any of his casinos (unless it was there by mistake)? In any of Wynn's past or present casinos? Surely he must be somewhat of a believer in the math?
    Last edited by Count Room; 11-13-2012 at 05:52 AM. Reason: spelling correction

  20. #40
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    I guess we are going to have to go over it again and again until you realize that "negative games" have nothing to do with walking away with winnings. For some reason, you cannot conceive of someone walking away with a profit. Is this because you can't or never have walked away with a profit? The "expected return" on a game does not tell you if you are going to win or lose when you actually play the game. And if you are ahead and decide to leave -- for one session, two sessioins, or more, you will be a winner. You just can't accept that, can you Arc?
    Once again Alan is trying to change what I said. As I've stated many times anyone can win on any given day playing any strategy. Why do I have to keep repeating this? When will you start trying to comprehend, Alan? Are you really that thick?

    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    No, Arc, he never said "players never win period." Why don't you listen again to the video. Here is a transcript:

    Q: The only way to win in a casino?
    A: Is to own won, unless you're very lucky.

    Narration: And he says even when people are lucky they usually gamble away their winnings.

    Q: You have never known in your entire life a gambler who comes here and wins big and walks away?
    A: Never.
    Q: You know nobody, hardly, that over the stretch of time is ahead?
    A: No.

    Well, Arc, that is quite a difference from your statement that "he states that players never win period."
    Seems like you are once again trying to change the meaning of what I said. I said "period" as an attempt to summarize Wynn's claims when he said "never". How are those different? Obviously, they aren't and Alan, once again attempting to argue with basic facts, has it all wrong.

    Notice how Alan ignored the fact that according to Wynn it is impossible to win in a casino as Singer has claimed. As I said before, if Alan is quoting Wynn because he believes he is right, then Alan is calling Singer a liar.
    Last edited by arcimede$; 11-13-2012 at 06:38 AM.

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
  •