question for math guys

[regnis]

Instead of reading Arci's standard liar response, try this. If you look closely, he's the one with the skinny red tie

[regnis]

I only lied about not having sexual relations with that woman. I had sexual relations and am proud of it. And I'd do it again--if given the chance.

[Alan Mendelson]

The positive edge will create a high probability of success.

...it comes down to probabilities. Personally, I'd prefer a 95% "chance" of success than a 95% "chance" of failure.

I never said anything about "guarantees". All I've claimed is high probabilities.

The problem with all of your discussion about probabilities is that the probabilities are determined after the flop or after the original deal of cards to play. Any thought about probabilities based on a pay table in a random game is guess work and wishful thinking at best and fantasy at the extreme.

[Vegas Vic]

The problem with all of your discussion about probabilities is that the probabilities are determined after the flop or after the original deal of cards to play. Any thought about probabilities based on a pay table in a random game is guess work and wishful thinking at best and fantasy at the extreme.

The probability that this will be refuted is 100%, if not more.

[arcimede$]

The problem with all of your discussion about probabilities is that the probabilities are determined after the flop or after the original deal of cards to play. Any thought about probabilities based on a pay table in a random game is guess work and wishful thinking at best and fantasy at the extreme.

If you really believe that rubbish then there is little hope for you. Of course, a person who actually believes win goals will overcome the frequencies of the dealt cards is most obviously math illiterate.

There was a time when I gave you the facts to help you understand. You chose to ignore them. So, I no longer will be bothered. If you choose to make idiotic statements, then I can only assume you are an idiot.

[regnis]

Do you feel the Love??

[jatki]

I don't see anyone else calling people bad names or telling them how stupid they are arc. If the pressure of everyday life is really getting to you this much then why not finally do what you said multiple times, and leave? Or spend that time making real smashed potatoes and gravy. I see no need for continued abuse. Your method of videopoker play is known and rejected by some people so live with it. Rob Singer's method is seen as parts of it having merit to several of us and the fact that you label him a liar for that and others just because they see more than you means nothing at all to people who enjoy reading discussions.

What a grouchy person!

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you have blinders on. We are not arguing math, or facts. What we are discussing and what you won't recognize, is "application."

Even you have reported weeks or perhaps months of losing sessions. Have you never been ahead at some point during those sessions? Had you picked an "exit point" with a profit during those sessions would you have walked out of the casino with a profit instead of a loss? Or are you telling us that at each and every losing session you started to lose from the very first play and continued to lose throughout the entire session?

There is no issue about "facts." And I would suggest that who is an idiot in video poker play has no regard to math skills or IQ but whether or not they know when to keep playing and when to quit.

If you ask me, to keep pounding at a machine for a set number of hours each day to earn comps, is quite idiotic... even if you do claim to have an edge.

[jatki]

Alan you put it balls-on. The way arc tells his stories you'd think his losing sessions are as guaranteed as the little win percentage he says he gets in spite of them. I can see it now, he wanders in, sits at his seat, then starts losing and gives up so he ends up losing a lot more than he expected. Puts in the time for the comps and the longterm I guess. Headshakingly odd if you ask me. But is anything he says ever true?

[redietz]

This is a very strange little forum world. Alan, obviously if you wanted to figure anything out, you'd consult professional mathematicians at your local college -- and in sunny southern California, there are quite a few. So your goal isn't to figure anything out. Either that, or you think you have a better grasp of game theory than people with doctorates in math. I wish, on occasion, l that I could believe myself to be smarter than everybody else, but I just can't quite brainwash myself to that extent.

There's a big world outside this forum, and Rob's iconoclastic genius just doesn't seem to get recognized outside these walls. Now you have two options: either the people in this forum world are more brilliant than the people outside these forum walls, or they are not. My bet would be that we have a slightly expanded version of folie et deux in progress (although with Rob's aliases, it may indeed be deux).

[regnis]

Red-this has been argued over and over. No one is questioning the math. The math simply tells us what the expected return will be based upon the paytable of the game. But there still is no guaranty that any player or group of players will have results equal to that expected return, and in the short term, that particular machine will have great deviations from that expected return.

You and Arci both agree that the machine will have ebbs and flows along the way where there are wins and losses--all being random--and that not every deal will result in a 98.4 return (or whatever the paytable is). Maybe--or I'll even say probably, over the life of that machine, it will approximate the expected return, but it will go up and down along the way.

So some of us, who don't want to play for endless hours, are hoping to catch lightening in a bottle and catch a winner. We still play with proper strategy and we may lose---but we may win and take our profit. You and Arci may or may not catch that winner--but you will keep pounding away because you believe you will ultimately achieve the expected result.

I have no problem with you playing for lengthy hours. What I question is Arci saying he doesn't play that much, yet he is still surpassing the expected return ofthe long term play that he swears by. And then he blasts anyone who believes you can win short term or in any other fashion.

I'll save arci the trouble of responding and respond to myself for him---LIAR




.

[jatki]

I'm getting what you say regnis. Arc talks the longterm expected return talk, but walks the shortterm anything-can-go walk, and all the while his story is how he plays such a longterm game that since he's so far down the pike he can and does get that little percentage win he math-talks about.

But you caught him at his lie and now he's angry and unhappy, ha what's new pussycat. Looks like those facts he claims to only deal with came right back to bite him in the ass. He says the longterm is needed to get to expectation yet he plays as little as a Chinese visitor with cataracts.

Redetz, I don't see the need to try and cover for arc. Let him go down in his own ship alone. You keep harping on how Alan won't go out and check with university mathematicians or something, yet you never get it that he or me or regnis or Singer are not and have never questioned the math. I guess you let that pass because arc let's it pass, maybe so you can grumble about the sacred university professors again. Then there's your idea of Rob having aliases. I'm not posting his will now and haven't ever since months ago. He has said he's never used an alias anywhere and I believe him, mostly because arc says he has and I know arc lies about me. So please don't let that stop you from accepting we believe the math.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you have blinders on. We are not arguing math, or facts. What we are discussing and what you won't recognize, is "application."

No, you are just making stuff up. When you say "Any thought about probabilities based on a pay table in a random game is guess work and wishful thinking at best and fantasy at the extreme." then you are stating it makes no difference what machine you play or how you play. It's all just "wishful thinking".

Of course, that is nothing but nonsense and anyone who thinks that way is clueless. When you decide to make an effort to have a reasonable discussion let me know.

Even you have reported weeks or perhaps months of losing sessions. Have you never been ahead at some point during those sessions? Had you picked an "exit point" with a profit during those sessions would you have walked out of the casino with a profit instead of a loss? Or are you telling us that at each and every losing session you started to lose from the very first play and continued to lose throughout the entire session?

It's called variance. I've explained it to you many times. Sessions have all kinds of patterns. Sometimes you do start off losing and keep losing. Sometimes you keep on winning. More often, you go through periods of wins and losses during a session. Since the games are random you never know what is going to happen next.

The key thing to understand is randomness means you will see a normal distribution of cards in all positions. It doesn't matter when you quit, the next time you play the distribution just continues. You can't force the RNG to give you a distribution that leads to more winners. If you could that would mean the machines were not random. Anyone who thinks they can control their cards is living on Fantasy Island. However, every time you indicate that win goals can make you a winner you are also claiming you will see a non-random distribution of cards. Yet, you state you believe the machines are random, while you believe they will give you non-random cards. Don't you see the problem?

There is no issue about "facts." And I would suggest that who is an idiot in video poker play has no regard to math skills or IQ but whether or not they know when to keep playing and when to quit.

Yes Alan, all the mathematicians in the world are crazy while you are brilliant. Amazing.

If you ask me, to keep pounding at a machine for a set number of hours each day to earn comps, is quite idiotic... even if you do claim to have an edge.

Yet, my approach has led to winning each and every year. Maybe that should tell you something. Just maybe you are the one who doesn't understand the situation.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, why do you make things up? You wrote "you are stating it makes no difference what machine you play or how you play" but I never said that. In fact I always play the best possible pay table and I play "correct strategy". The issue is not about pay tables, or strategy. The issue is leaving when you have a profit.

Then you wrote about variance. Of course there is variance but why do you have to be a victim of variance? Why not quit when you are ahead? Why continue to sit there and watch your profit get whittled away by that variance which is destined to come? If you have a chance to leave with a profit why not take advantage of that opportunity?

You are very good at quoting the rules of variance and distribution and randomness... and all of these rules of math and math theory are what keeps the casinos in business. But we as players don't have the deep pockets that a casino has, so we can't wait and wait and keep playing and playing hoping for the variance and the distribution and the math of the game to bail us out. You do make the case for why casinos will win. You do nothing to help the player.

And that is what I am talking about: the players' perspective. I think it is what regnis and jatki and singer and everyone else is talking about too. We do not have the long term that the casino has. We also don't have the bankroll that the casino has. So we can't rely on the long term math the way the casino can. We have to take our profits when we can.

You keep saying that we are arguing with the math. We're not. You are stubborn, and at this point you are being ridiculous.

And if you do win each year, and you are not a long term player, then you got lucky.

[Vegas Vic]

There's a big world outside this forum, and Rob's iconoclastic genius just doesn't seem to get recognized outside these walls.

Maybe because it doesn't exist?

[arcimede$]

Red-this has been argued over and over. No one is questioning the math. The math simply tells us what the expected return will be based upon the paytable of the game. But there still is no guaranty that any player or group of players will have results equal to that expected return, and in the short term, that particular machine will have great deviations from that expected return.

No argument. This is what the math knowledgeable people have always said.

You and Arci both agree that the machine will have ebbs and flows along the way where there are wins and losses--all being random--and that not every deal will result in a 98.4 return (or whatever the paytable is). Maybe--or I'll even say probably, over the life of that machine, it will approximate the expected return, but it will go up and down along the way.

So far, so good.

So some of us, who don't want to play for endless hours, are hoping to catch lightening in a bottle and catch a winner. We still play with proper strategy and we may lose---but we may win and take our profit. You and Arci may or may not catch that winner--but you will keep pounding away because you believe you will ultimately achieve the expected result.

No, we don't keep "pounding away". We play until we no longer want to play. Why did you make this statement? If you don't know how we play then you should ask. If you make untrue statements about what we think or do then you are lying.

I have no problem with you playing for lengthy hours. What I question is Arci saying he doesn't play that much, yet he is still surpassing the expected return ofthe long term play that he swears by. And then he blasts anyone who believes you can win short term or in any other fashion.

You clearly don't have a clue what "long term play" means. There is no requirement to play a certain number of hands to surpass the expected return. That is just one more nonsense claim that I keep hearing. Why don't spend a little time to understand the facts rather than making these kind of absurd statements?

[arcimede$]

Arc, why do you make things up? You wrote "you are stating it makes no difference what machine you play or how you play" but I never said that. In fact I always play the best possible pay table and I play "correct strategy". The issue is not about pay tables, or strategy. The issue is leaving when you have a profit.

Look, I know you really don't believe "it's all guesswork", but that is exactly what you said in a sentence I quoted previously. If it's all guesswork then it doesn't make a difference. If it's not guesswork then selecting proper pay tables and playing correctly does make a difference. If you don't mean something then maybe you shouldn't say it.

Then you wrote about variance. Of course there is variance but why do you have to be a victim of variance? Why not quit when you are ahead? Why continue to sit there and watch your profit get whittled away by that variance which is destined to come? If you have a chance to leave with a profit why not take advantage of that opportunity?

I've never said you shouldn't quit. In fact I stated clearly that win/lost goals are a good idea when playing a negative game. However, the variance is going to come no matter what you do. All you do with these goals is reduce your play.

You are very good at quoting the rules of variance and distribution and randomness... and all of these rules of math and math theory are what keeps the casinos in business. But we as players don't have the deep pockets that a casino has, so we can't wait and wait and keep playing and playing hoping for the variance and the distribution and the math of the game to bail us out. You do make the case for why casinos will win. You do nothing to help the player.

Sure I do. I explain the facts. You confuse the issue with your silly claims.

And that is what I am talking about: the players' perspective. I think it is what regnis and jatki and singer and everyone else is talking about too. We do not have the long term that the casino has. We also don't have the bankroll that the casino has. So we can't rely on the long term math the way the casino can. We have to take our profits when we can.

You keep saying that we are arguing with the math. We're not. You are stubborn, and at this point you are being ridiculous.

Of course you argue the math. You did it again here. When are you going to quit claiming all the world's mathematicians are wrong?

And if you do win each year, and you are not a long term player, then you got lucky.

No, luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. The math gives me about a 95% chance of success. That means I should win about 19 out of every 20 years. So, what you just said is arguing with the math. You just won't quit. And, you refuse to go verify what I've been telling you with any University math PhD. You obviously want to ignore the math for your own reasons. That is pretty strange for someone who runs a forum. You are doing a great disservice to anyone who happens to come to this forum. The continual flow of illogical claims and pure nonsense never stops.

[Alan Mendelson]

You clearly don't have a clue what "long term play" means.

Help us out here, Arc, what does "long term play" mean?

There is no requirement to play a certain number of hands to surpass the expected return. That is just one more nonsense claim that I keep hearing. Why don't spend a little time to understand the facts rather than making these kind of absurd statements?

Just how many hands do you need to surpass the expected return? How about ONE hand. Now this is exactly what Rob's strategy is all about. You hit a win goal and you leave.

[redietz]

If you guys aren't arguing against "the math," then you're arguing against "the logic."

Why do you want to convince people they are better served with win goals and progressions than with mathematically correct plays? What is your motivation?

If people buy into Alan and Rob's theories, they will lose more money per hour played than if they play correctly. So all of this win goal/progression stuff makes Alan two things: a shill for the casinos and a shill for Rob. I don't have an alternative explanation.

Come to think of it, that seems to explain things pretty completely.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you guys aren't arguing against "the math," then you're arguing against "the logic."

Why do you want to convince people they are better served with win goals and progressions than with mathematically correct plays? What is your motivation?

If people buy into Alan and Rob's theories, they will lose more money per hour played than if they play correctly. So all of this win goal/progression stuff makes Alan two things: a shill for the casinos and a shill for Rob. I don't have an alternative explanation.

Come to think of it, that seems to explain things pretty completely.

First of all, I am not going to comment about "progressions" because we're not talking about progressions. And while Rob might use a progression as part of his play, I certainly don't and I am critical of it. So please be more careful in your attacks.

But let's talk about this objection you have to win goals and how you say we're arguing against the math. What is the math of the game? It is simply your chance of drawing winning or losing hands based on the selection of cards from a 52 or 53 card deck. THAT is the math of the game. There is nothing else. So where does it say it is against "the math" to have a "win goal"?

redietz, even Arc says there is nothing wrong with a win goal at a negative expectation game. And my question is, since you are not guaranteed to win at a positive expectation game, why can't you have a win goal at positive expectation games also?

If there is anyone acting as a shill for the casinos its the "math guys" who say that playing a positive expectation game will give them a high probability of winning. That is exactly what a shill would say.

People who play with "win goals" are a bit more realistic, because what they are saying is "I may not win so I better cash out while I'm ahead."

And redietz your comment "If people buy into Alan and Rob's theories, they will lose more money per hour played than if they play correctly" is totally off base. I play conventional strategy. And for the most part, SO DOES ROB SINGER. You are blowing up out of proportion Rob's use of "special plays" and if you follow Rob's strategy of "quitting when ahead" you will not "be losing more money per hour" because you won't be losing.

If anything, Rob's advice to quit while you're ahead may be the only way to prevent being a loser. The key of course is knowing when to quit. Perhaps you should quit after the very first play that puts you one coin ahead? Because if that is your measure of success, you have certainly succeeded.