question for math guys

[arcimede$]

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?

About 250K the last couple of years. I just went over 200K for this year.

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

No one questions, despite Alan's lies above, that anyone can win playing negative VP games (possibilities). We've discussed this umpteen times. It's all about probabilities. Just like anyone can win at powerball but the probability is astronomically small, the probability of winning VP playing negative games is also small.

As I've said many times, I am only against people who claim that they can overcome the math with some kind of voodoo system. They are liars as has been proven with your nameless person.

[Alan Mendelson]

...despite Alan's lies above, that anyone can win playing negative VP games...

Are you calling me a liar because I said people can win playing negative VP games? If that's what you are doing, you are a sick pup.

[regnis]

Alan-you picked up on exactly what I was asking of Arci. It seems to me, that Arci doesn't play enough to get the benefit of being an AP, and as such, maybe he is proving your and Rob's point about short term profit.

He questioned my million hand simulation yet he is achieving the long term expected returns on a shorter term.

That being said, I believe his results, as well as Rob's and look at your recent hot streak. To me, it proves 1 thing---you need LUCK.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regnis, here is a rule about gamblers that I picked up along the way: Every gambler who wins can give you a reason why he wins. And every gambler who loses can give you a reason why he loses. But only an honest person will tell you it was just luck.

[regnis]

Reminds me one night my friend/bookie/bartender and I were sitting at his bar and were bored so we bet 15 baseball parlays and hit em all. While I used to bet football and hoops, I have no interest in baseball (being a lifelong cub fan) and no knowledge of any kind as to betting baseball.

My friend walked around like he was Jimmy the greek for weeks--To this day I just shake my head at my 1 day of blind luck.

[arcimede$]

Are you calling me a liar because I said people can win playing negative VP games? If that's what you are doing, you are a sick pup.

No, you are a liar for claiming I state no one can win playing a negative game despite the fact we've covered this topic multiple times. It's no long a case of you being confused. It must be intentional lies. I've given you the benefit of the doubt way too long. I won't do it any longer.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm sorry Arc, I stand corrected. As long as you agree that we can win on negative expectation video poker games there is nothing left to argue or even discuss. Finally, it's settled. What a relief!!!

[redietz]

I still want that polygraph wager with Rob regarding whether I'm "ahead lifetime" on video poker. Sounds like a made-for-taping kind of event.

[arcimede$]

I'm sorry Arc, I stand corrected. As long as you agree that we can win on negative expectation video poker games there is nothing left to argue or even discuss. Finally, it's settled. What a relief!!!

If that's all we discussed we would have been done long ago. But it's not, is it? We've discussed the important issue of what is probable. That's the rub, while you can win doing anything, the odds increase the smarter you go about the process of gambling.

In addition, those who claim they can overcome those odds through voodoo magic (like win goals and progressions) add nothing to the issue. They are lying.

[arcimede$]

Alan-you picked up on exactly what I was asking of Arci. It seems to me, that Arci doesn't play enough to get the benefit of being an AP, and as such, maybe he is proving your and Rob's point about short term profit.

Of course I play enough. There is no magic about any number of hands. Those that claim the benefits of making intelligent choices only occurs in the far future are selling you a load of crap. They are lying to promote themselves.

He questioned my million hand simulation yet he is achieving the long term expected returns on a shorter term.

That being said, I believe his results, as well as Rob's and look at your recent hot streak. To me, it proves 1 thing---you need LUCK.

I questioned your simulation because you provided no evidence you even did it while your claims about the results are very unlikely. If your cousin really wrote a program then it would be easy for him to send you the source and for you to copy it into this forum. The fact you have not done so makes any logical person conclude it never happened. All you did was make everything you say from now on untrustworthy.

[Alan Mendelson]

If that's all we discussed we would have been done long ago. But it's not, is it? We've discussed the important issue of what is probable.

Arc, you have your "religion" about going into a casino, and I and others have their "religion." You find your religion in the math of each game. My religion in video poker is more "ecumenical" (multiple Churches) and includes other disciplines such as chance, luck, discipline, management, win goals. And you reject those to various degrees because you have said yourself that your plan in a casino is to play a set number of hours (time) and you let the "math" decide your fate. Of course, you think your positive edge will always come through for you.

I don't believe that there is anything but chance in a casino. I think you could have all of the correct strategy memorized to a "T" but it all comes down to the chance of the RNG.

You, on the other hand, believe that RNGs are random, but that the "math" will somehow works its magic on the RNG to give you the "positive edge" you envisioned that morning while shaving and showering and clipping your finger nails for your big daily session at the casino pressing buttons.

What you call "voodoo magic" is nothing more than a willingness to deal with the reality of casino gambling... something you cannot fathom. The reality is the RNG does not perform according to correct strategy. Let that sink in, if you can. The RNG does not deliver the cards you want it to deliver according to the holds you make. When it does, it is by chance... luck. What you call "voodoo" in having a win goal again is something to deal with the reality of a casino because (like it or not) wins and losses may come in spurts and its better to get out during a lucky spurt than during the depths of a losing spurt. And what you call "voodoo" in "special plays" might actually be a way for someone to maximize their luck.

You continue to make your ridiculous statements about overcoming "odds" or changing the "expected return" no matter how many times you've been told that the odds don't change and the expected return doesn't change -- but it's your actual return that can change based not only on what you do as an individual, but also what that RANDOM number generator does.

If there is any voodoo being preached here it is by you. Your full faith in the math is voodoo that says the machines are not random. Because only someone who believes that a positive expectation game will guarantee them a profit over the long term must also believe in voodoo.

[regnis]

Arci always makes my day. If anyone disagrees with you in any way they are a LIAR. There can be no disagreement--Arci knows all and you are a LIAR.

But there are only 2 people here that have any reason to lie--Singer, because he has a system, and Arci, because he claims the system can't work. Nobody else is pushing anything but discussion. Nobody else has an agenda, just you and Singer. So you see Arci, nobody else has anything to lie about.

I have made no claims of winning systems or even winnings for that matter. In fact, my claim to shame is having so few Royals in all my years of play. I posted the results of a simulation for no reason other than to post the reults of a simulation. It was not meant to and does not prove anything other than maybe the randomness of the game.

So Arci, I do take offense to you calling me and others liars. And remember--"he who casts stones....."

And by the way--I believe Singer

[regnis]

[If there is any voodoo being preached here it is by you. Your full faith in the math is voodoo that says the machines are not random. Because only someone who believes that a positive expectation game will guarantee them a profit over the long term must also believe in voodoo.[/QUOTE]

Yes Alan--and he can do it short term. He doesn't even have to grind it out and have teams playing to eternity to do it. 1st coin in and he's at 102%.

[jatki]

This has been entertaining to read through. I'm a LIAR too I thought you might want to know.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you have your "religion" about going into a casino, and I and others have their "religion."

Sorry Alan, once again you are confused. Religion is faith based. Mathematics is fact based. Your silly claims only show how out-of-touch with reality you have become.

You find your religion in the math of each game. My religion in video poker is more "ecumenical" (multiple Churches) and includes other disciplines such as chance, luck, discipline, management, win goals. And you reject those to various degrees because you have said yourself that your plan in a casino is to play a set number of hours (time) and you let the "math" decide your fate. Of course, you think your positive edge will always come through for you.

The positive edge will create a high probability of success. Your faith is nothing but guesswork because you are totally ignorant of reality. You might as well be sacrificing virgins to the nearest volcano. Your thinking is right in the same vein.

I don't believe that there is anything but chance in a casino. I think you could have all of the correct strategy memorized to a "T" but it all comes down to the chance of the RNG.

No, it comes down to probabilities. Personally, I'd prefer a 95% "chance" of success than a 95% "chance" of failure. You seem to think it's all equal. What's amazing is this has all been explained to you many times. Every expert in the world agrees with me yet you somehow think we're all wrong. When you really think about it, it is almost side-splitting funny.

You, on the other hand, believe that RNGs are random, but that the "math" will somehow works its magic on the RNG to give you the "positive edge" you envisioned that morning while shaving and showering and clipping your finger nails for your big daily session at the casino pressing buttons.

Nothing of the kind. I believe that the machines are random because I've tracked my results for years and what I see confirms my belief. You see Alan, you can either wallow in your ignorance or rise above it. You have a choice and you have chosen the former. Very sad.

What you call "voodoo magic" is nothing more than a willingness to deal with the reality of casino gambling... something you cannot fathom. The reality is the RNG does not perform according to correct strategy. Let that sink in, if you can. The RNG does not deliver the cards you want it to deliver according to the holds you make. When it does, it is by chance... luck. What you call "voodoo" in having a win goal again is something to deal with the reality of a casino because (like it or not) wins and losses may come in spurts and its better to get out during a lucky spurt than during the depths of a losing spurt. And what you call "voodoo" in "special plays" might actually be a way for someone to maximize their luck.

Complete nonsense. This is exactly what I mean by "wallowing". You are making it up as you go along based on nothing but what you want to be true. You can't accept reality.

You continue to make your ridiculous statements about overcoming "odds" or changing the "expected return" no matter how many times you've been told that the odds don't change and the expected return doesn't change -- but it's your actual return that can change based not only on what you do as an individual, but also what that RANDOM number generator does.

Your lying again. I've never said what you claim. I understand why you choose to lie. You have nothing but lies to fall back on.

If there is any voodoo being preached here it is by you. Your full faith in the math is voodoo that says the machines are not random. Because only someone who believes that a positive expectation game will guarantee them a profit over the long term must also believe in voodoo.

More lies. I never said anything about "guarantees". All I've claimed is high probabilities. It's very telling that you feel you have to lie about my position. Why is that, Alan?

[arcimede$]

Arci always makes my day. If anyone disagrees with you in any way they are a LIAR. There can be no disagreement--Arci knows all and you are a LIAR.

Another person who can't fathom what I've said so feels the need to lie about my statements. Since I know precisely what my position is, when someone makes a claim that does not agree with that position, then they are lying. It's really very simple. Maybe if you spent 2 minutes trying to understand what I've stated instead of spewing nonsense you wouldn't need to lie.

But there are only 2 people here that have any reason to lie--Singer, because he has a system, and Arci, because he claims the system can't work. Nobody else is pushing anything but discussion. Nobody else has an agenda, just you and Singer. So you see Arci, nobody else has anything to lie about.

Then why did you just lie about me?

I have made no claims of winning systems or even winnings for that matter. In fact, my claim to shame is having so few Royals in all my years of play. I posted the results of a simulation for no reason other than to post the reults of a simulation. It was not meant to and does not prove anything other than maybe the randomness of the game.

As far as the evidence goes, you lied about the simulation. You refuse to back up your claim. Now, you just lied about my claims above. I can't tell why you choose to lie, all I can do is point out the facts.

So Arci, I do take offense to you calling me and others liars. And remember--"he who casts stones....."

And by the way--I believe Singer

Instead of "taking offense" why don't you provide the information that would prove you weren't lying? Your words are meaningless. And, the fact that you claim to believe a proven liar like Singer says a lot about your critical thinking skills.

[arcimede$]

This has been entertaining to read through. I'm a LIAR too I thought you might want to know.

Everyone already knew that since you admitted your phony impersonation already.

[Vegas Vic]

I think that somewhere along the line I admitted that I, too, am a liar, but now I confess that I lied about that.

[jatki]

I saw that arc was preparing some feast Thursday with a helping of fast food instant potatoes with some of their delicious greasy gravy. Yummy in my tummy. But it looks like the thought of those gormet offerings have already begun getting to the guy, as his lies keep flowing and he publishes more baseless insults than a drunken sailor in charge of the Weekly Squid. Sure sounds like it's going to be one heck of a holiday season at the arc's.

Where have all the flowers gone?

[Vegas Vic]

Where have all the flowers gone?

Girls have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?