question for math guys

[arcimede$]

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?

It's even worse than that. When they put in some almost even games (positive with extras) they pulled them out quickly as they did not generate *enough* revenue. The hilarious thing is supposedly they put them in on the advice of Singer who claimed all the APers would lose a bundle. Seems like that didn't happen and Singer was proven to be wrong ... as usual.

[Alan Mendelson]

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?

Arc, you absolutely amaze me. I asked you: "What are the facts that are in disupte?"

And this is what you said, Arc: "The continual claims that using win goals can beat a negative game. How many times do I have to repeat this?"

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OTHER STATEMENTS, MADE MANY TIMES I AGREE, THAT "ANYONE CAN WIN ON ANY GIVEN DAY PLAYING ANY STRATEGY."

So, let us return to the issue at hand, instead of you trying to create a diversion... again.

[Alan Mendelson]

Once again Alan is trying to change what I said.

More amazement. I am not trying to change anything. I'm just pointing out what you said, and fortunately for everyone else, they can go back and read exactly what you posted. You misquoted Wynn. And I transcribed exactly what was said on 60 Minutes.

Now, your new diversion:

As I said before, if Alan is quoting Wynn because he believes he is right, then Alan is calling Singer a liar.

I was quoting what Wynn said, and what Wynn said has more to do with your claims as an AP than Singer's claims. But you will take any opportunity you can to attack Singer, won't you Arc?

Stick to the issues, and the issue is that Steve Wynn says there are no long term winners except if they get lucky:

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

Gee, Rob Singer's entire strategy is about maximizing the chance to get lucky.

[regnis]

If you rephrase that statement then we totally agree. There's a high probability you will not win on a negative machine over time.



There is no such thing as short term for a regular gambler.



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?

I never said that there was any certainty of being ahead. That is the same long term short term or any other term. But if I get ahead by anything significant--I'm gone or, if I want some entertainment value, I'm back down to quarters to kill some time or, if I hit something at quarters, I may step it back up with some of that profit.


And I disagree as to your statement that there is no short term. I have been gambling since I was 12, some years professionally but most years for entertainment. My goal has always been to win on a day, not a month, year, decade, etc. If you win that day, that is a good thing.

Now I will admit that my primary gambling has been thoroughbred racing, where there is no house edge that will grind me down long term. In fact, because it is paramutual, I am betting not against the house but against other gamblers. In that sense, I would agree with Red's statement that the recreational gamblers fund his winning. In horse racing, that is true.

Arc--next time I go to the casino I'll photo the pay tables of the $1.00 VP so you can see what we have. Again, there may be an isolated game somewhere with a better table, but it's offset by the time and travel if it even exists. So I'll photo the table at the one place where I mainly play which is near my office--where I turn my free lunch into
-$1200--lol.

[Rob.Singer]

Count, a few years back I not only worked with Wynn to put in 20 +EV machines 25c thru dollars (including the sacred AP game FPDW) it was documented with pictures in my Gaming Today column complete with my interviews of management. Steve Wynn was NOT afraid to put them in and he told me himself.

Of course word got out fast, and every self-proclaimed LV "AP" showed up wrestling for a seat. Exactly as planned and expected. Then the out-of-towner hotel guests started arriving, and then the complaints started. They flew in hoping to play them, but the locals hogged the seats 24/7. There was Jean Scott & Brad sitting as long as their arthritic joints would allow them, a tireless Chinese family, and various tag teams from around town. To compound things, other uninterested guests began complaining of walking by the machine banks and were treated to the smell of tuna fish sandwiches, garbage messes on the floor nearby, and the obnoxious sounds of noodle-slurping.

After several weeks the complaints kept mounting, and I was asked to come into a management meeting for my input on all this, because Steve Wynn did not want his brand tarnished but he also didn't want to piss off the locals. In the meeting, the numbers were clear: these machines were earning about 1.5% less than other similar machines with lesser paytables, but the overall dollar hold was far far greater. And even though the machines were supposedly manned by the best and brighest of the local AP pool, not one machine was losing money. Not one!

However, Wynn said he wanted the customer bickering to end, so the machines had their pay tables lowered. It brought to an end the most intriguing, telling vp story ever on the Strip. And you know what else? I did it all for free, including getting them to keep a bastard 99.9% DW game on various machines after it was over. I did get invited in with my wife for a 3-night stay in a suite, complete RFB, and we literally spent thousands and thousands of dollars on food, drinks, shows, the spa, and limos. I wasn't expecting it but Wynn himself invited me in. The machines, although it cost him a bit of embarrassment, made him some good money, and it was his way of thanking me.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, here's why being able to consistently win and win only on those awful -EV games is entirely possible: you already know this, but go ahead and set a 5c win goal for every trip you take. Never mind arci's claim that it's not realistic to do this--he only says that because he doesn't like what it represents--because it actually IS a real scenario and the math SAYS it's a real scenario. Play BP nickels thru $25, starting at one nickel then increasing the bet until you get 2pair or better (or a push and play it again) then leave a winner. You'll play hands of 5c, 10c, 25c, 50c, $1, $2, $5, $10, & $25,. That's nine opportunities to get 2pr.--a 1 in 9 chance, or about 11%. So how often does two pair hit on average? About 13% of the time. So can the math guys argue against this? Nope, except to theorize that when the times come that you don't attain the two pair in these 9 tries, the loss will be $43.90, and with their all-time favorite guess about my strategy, they'll say how it will wipe out all the smaller winners. But will these guys ever want to accept that some bigger winners can and do hit--and more often than the $43.90 losers?? Nope, because it doesn't fit their theory about negative ev machines, and it will totally contradict their arguments.

[arcimede$]

More amazement. I am not trying to change anything. I'm just pointing out what you said, and fortunately for everyone else, they can go back and read exactly what you posted. You misquoted Wynn. And I transcribed exactly what was said on 60 Minutes.

Nonsense. I stated no one won, period. Wynn stated there were "never" any winners. Both of those statements mean exactly the same thing. I can only marvel at your silly claims.

Now, your new diversion: "As I said before, if Alan is quoting Wynn because he believes he is right, then Alan is calling Singer a liar."

I was quoting what Wynn said, and what Wynn said has more to do with your claims as an AP than Singer's claims.

More nonsense. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with APers since Wynn has no advantage games. However, they do have loads of negative games.

But you will take any opportunity you can to attack Singer, won't you Arc?

I simply was pointing out that if Wynn's statement had any relevance it was to Singer's play. And, that is clear to anyone not fully embracing their own cognitive dissonance.

Stick to the issues, and the issue is that Steve Wynn says there are no long term winners except if they get lucky:

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

Gee, Rob Singer's entire strategy is about maximizing the chance to get lucky.

Once again Wynn only has negative games. I am amazed that you can't understand the difference. I guess I thought you were a lot smarter.

[arcimede$]

Alan, here's why being able to consistently win and win only on those awful -EV games is entirely possible: you already know this, but go ahead and set a 5c win goal for every trip you take. Never mind arci's claim that it's not realistic to do this--he only says that because he doesn't like what it represents--because it actually IS a real scenario and the math SAYS it's a real scenario. Play BP nickels thru $25, starting at one nickel then increasing the bet until you get 2pair or better (or a push and play it again) then leave a winner. You'll play hands of 5c, 10c, 25c, 50c, $1, $2, $5, $10, & $25,. That's nine opportunities to get 2pr.--a 1 in 9 chance, or about 11%. So how often does two pair hit on average? About 13% of the time. So can the math guys argue against this? Nope, except to theorize that when the times come that you don't attain the two pair in these 9 tries, the loss will be $43.90, and with their all-time favorite guess about my strategy, they'll say how it will wipe out all the smaller winners. But will these guys ever want to accept that some bigger winners can and do hit--and more often than the $43.90 losers?? Nope, because it doesn't fit their theory about negative ev machines, and it will totally contradict their arguments.

I see Singer once again wants to demonstrate to the world what a lightweight he is with math. According to his own numbers you have a 1 in 8 chance of losing. That means you win a nickel 7 out of 8 tries. So, you risk $43.90 for a chance at winning 5 cents times 7 or a grand total of 35 cents. That's the Singer method. Anybody out there like those odds?

Of course, he's absolutely right that you could hit bigger winners. And, as the math is well known, those winners get back most of the difference above to get you right on the EV of the game. It's almost like it is simple math.

[redietz]

I just want to spell out that recreational players subsidize me because without them, I wouldn't have access to positive EV plays. Recreational players play less than optimally, so optimal machines and scenarios can exist. That subsidizes me. Without recreational players, I wouldn't win, wouldn't get comps, wouldn't get free food and rooms. If everyone was an advantage player, there would be no advantage plays. So Alan, I should be thanking you instead of debating you. Keep doing what you're doing -- win goals, quitting when ahead, playing negative machines -- don't stop on my account.

I remember those machines at the Wynn that Rob's mentioned. I couldn't get on them until 2 or 3 AM most nights. What made them good plays were the generous comps Wynn installed when his casino first opened. Those comps didn't last long -- about as long as the machines. I was able to meet some of the women working the Wynn on the midnight shift during those nights I played on the machines. While well-dressed, they were curiously not the most attractive working girls on the strip, but rumor has it there are reasons for that.

[slingshot]

Alan, here's why being able to consistently win and win only on those awful -EV games is entirely possible: you already know this, but go ahead and set a 5c win goal for every trip you take. Never mind arci's claim that it's not realistic to do this--he only says that because he doesn't like what it represents--because it actually IS a real scenario and the math SAYS it's a real scenario. Play BP nickels thru $25, starting at one nickel then increasing the bet until you get 2pair or better (or a push and play it again) then leave a winner. You'll play hands of 5c, 10c, 25c, 50c, $1, $2, $5, $10, & $25,. That's nine opportunities to get 2pr.--a 1 in 9 chance, or about 11%. So how often does two pair hit on average? About 13% of the time. So can the math guys argue against this? Nope, except to theorize that when the times come that you don't attain the two pair in these 9 tries, the loss will be $43.90, and with their all-time favorite guess about my strategy, they'll say how it will wipe out all the smaller winners. But will these guys ever want to accept that some bigger winners can and do hit--and more often than the $43.90 losers?? Nope, because it doesn't fit their theory about negative ev machines, and it will totally contradict their arguments.

I can only go to the $2 level at my casino-but I find that highly interesting. AND I've been finding that it's unusual to go more than 3-4 hands without a push or two pair or better. So I would only play 6 hands, more or less? This gives me some ideas.

[Rob.Singer]

I just want to spell out that recreational players subsidize me.

I've always said the same thing about advantage players. None of them ever win without extreme good luck. Just ask Dancer.

[arcimede$]

I've always said the same thing about advantage players. None of them ever win without extreme good luck. Just ask Dancer.

As I've said many times, I couldn't care less how anyone plays. It's the lies and dishonest claims that I find morally repulsive. Once again I see Singer is doing exactly what I've said he does.

So, people need to ask themselves whether, when dealing with a person like Singer who lies for almost no reason at all, why would they believe a single thing he says?

[redietz]

I'm ahead lifetime, and I haven't had any extreme good luck, whatever that is.

[arcimede$]

I'm ahead lifetime, and I haven't had any extreme good luck, whatever that is.

Yup, if anything I'm also on the unlucky side and yet I win each and every year. I think it's just Singer feeling sorry for himself that he was unable to win at advantage play. So, he has created an entire fantasy world where he can believe whatever he wants. Of course, deep down he knows the truth. He knows it's all phony just like everything he says and does.

[Rob.Singer]

I'm ahead lifetime, and I haven't had any extreme good luck, whatever that is.

That's exactly what every AP who has come to me for advice and training have,always claimed....until they met me and had to try and say it face-to-face. Then the truth came out.

[redietz]

Pretty funny, Rob. Sounds like a polygraph wager to me. Alan, be my guest and set it up if you want. Loser pays the polygraph operator and whatever Rob wants to wager.

[Alan Mendelson]

Why a polygraph? I accept that APs can have profits playing positive expectation games just as Rob and others can have profits playing negative expectation games.

If there is a question to be answered it is why you and Arc maintain that you can't win on negative expectation games?

[regnis]

Here would be my question for Arci. How many hands have you played in the last 3 years? You said you don't play that much now. So is it 500,000--a million--2 million? I ask because the premise of the AP is if you play long enough, you will get closer to the expected return. Yet your play may be far from that yet you have shown a profit--which would mean a profit in the short term--which is what others (who shall remain nameless) here are suggesting

[Alan Mendelson]

Here would be my question for Arci. How many hands have you played in the last 3 years? You said you don't play that much now. So is it 500,000--a million--2 million? I ask because the premise of the AP is if you play long enough, you will get closer to the expected return. Yet your play may be far from that yet you have shown a profit--which would mean a profit in the short term--which is what others (who shall remain nameless) here are suggesting

That's a good question, because if I recall, Arc has flip-flopped on this several times. First he says he is a devoted long term player who is sure to play a required time period each time he goes to the casino -- a set number of hours -- to maintain his comps, and then he has said he doesn't play that much -- but still maintains a very impressive 8 year run of profits that total more than $100,000 without a losing year.

Arc also maintains the importance of playing a positive game, and has said that without a positive pay table he wouldn't play. He has also chastised me for not understanding that with a positive pay table that the longer one plays the more the profits will add up.

I think Arc has to play a lot. On the other hand, if he plays a little or "not a lot" then he is proving the concept that if you play selected times and get lucky you can be a profitable player. And this fits Rob's strategy of playing short sessions and quitting when ahead.

Now, of course there is nothing wrong with playing a lot if indeed that is the formula for winning at positive machines. So I suspect that Arc is going to tell us that he does play a lot so that he makes the most of the positive paytable plus other benefits associated with his play. But then again, if he says he doesn't play a lot, it opens the possibility that Rob Singer may also be correct that "selective play" and "quitting when ahead" also can work.

Another issue, if you don't mind:

why would they believe a single thing he says?

This is a good question and applies to anyone and everyone who has read any claim made by any anonymous person on an Internet forum. I am likely, however, to believe Bob Dancer when he says his wife hit a $400,000 royal and he lost thousands of dollars winning a car at the Palms. I believe him because his professional stature is at stake. (Why he tells us about the losses I don't understand, but to his credit he reported them.)

I am likely to believe Rob Singer because he was published and much of what he says on various web Forums was based on what was published in newspapers, and I trust that there was some journalistic integrity at the newspaper where his articles appeared.

But everyone else? Well, here's where I say take everything with a boulder of salt.

[redietz]

While I do believe Rob won, the "paper" his articles appeared in is Gaming Today. It ain't exactly the NY Times. I mean, they have a writer named "Keno LiL," who explains the "best ways" to play keno. But, as Alan says, one can win playing keno, so why criticize her? In fact, one can win playing blackjack with 6/5 naturals, poker tourneys with 35% holds, and so on, so maybe we should just play them all since we "can win" at them.