Doesn't this exercise prove money management and win goals/loss limits don't work?

[regnis]

A2a--again, as your proposition is stated: on 1 million hands with all of us playing perfect strategy and no special plays on a 98.7% machine; the expected return is that we will lose 1.3%. However, as you also know, this is just the "Expected return" and all of our results will vary.

But now back to reality. That video poker machine, over the next 10 years, will be in operation 22hours per day (in Illinois--we have to be dark 2 hours). That machine will deal 10's of millions of hands (I'll let arci calculate the #--I'm not smart enough). I will play a few hours a couple days a week during that time, and I may go months without playing in the summer. So while that machine may approach the long term, I am just 1 little blip on that machine's results, and my results will fall anywhere along Arci's bell curve (and in my case it would be way down low as I have had a paucity of royals).

So since my play is such a small portion of the machine's play, I cannot be anywhere near enough to long term to consider that I will approach the long term expected return (and again--I haven't), so I now choose to play session by session, with win goals and loss limits. And by the way, for income tax purposes, the IRS considers each day a session, and you are supposed to report your income from gaming on that basis. Previously, each winning bet would have been considered to be taxable. Think of what that would mean in VP, horses, or most other forms of gambling.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think it is inappropriate to quote Victor Royer as claiming 86 percent of gamblers are ahead at one point in their trips. There is no data attached to that claim, just the assuarnce that Royer is a "gaming author."

I sent him an email requesting the source of the study that he quoted. And might I add, if that is the only criticism you have about what I wrote I am amazed.

[arcimede$]

However, if you asked me which game I would prefer to play, I would say the game with the positive EV. AND, if you also asked Rob Singer which game he would prefer to play he would ALSO say the game with the positive EV.

Singer has stated many times that the return of the game is immaterial to winning. Of course, this is strange for a person saying they would prefer to play on a positive machine. Don't you see the contradiction? I guess not, you don't want to see it and you will cover your eyes and go lalalalalala.

[arcimede$]

So since my play is such a small portion of the machine's play, I cannot be anywhere near enough to long term to consider that I will approach the long term expected return (and again--I haven't), so I now choose to play session by session, with win goals and loss limits.

Yes you can approach the long term expected return. Just because a machine plays many more hands means nothing. Do you really believe flipping a coin a thousand times will NOT achieve very close to a 50-50 split? Do you think it takes millions of flips to achieve a 50-50 split?

It really doesn't take that many hands to get within 1-2% of the expected return. And, for regular players they can easily get wining 1% over just a couple of years. I guess ignorance is bliss. Just ignore the math and repeat what some moron like Singer has claimed. You really can fool some of the people all of the time.

And by the way, for income tax purposes, the IRS considers each day a session, and you are supposed to report your income from gaming on that basis. Previously, each winning bet would have been considered to be taxable. Think of what that would mean in VP, horses, or most other forms of gambling.

Yes, this is what the IRS says but it is not what they do.

[arcimede$]

I think the point about 86% of gamblers being ahead at some point is probably true. It just turns out the majority of them got ahead by just a few credits right when the started. No one spends 100s of dollars (or more) on a gambling trip and then cash out when they are ahead by $1.25 after their first hand.

Anyone using that claim as something meaningful is not too quick.

[Alan Mendelson]

Singer has stated many times that the return of the game is immaterial to winning. Of course, this is strange for a person saying they would prefer to play on a positive machine. Don't you see the contradiction? I guess not, you don't want to see it and you will cover your eyes and go lalalalalala.

Well, I wouldn't say that the return of the game is "immaterial" because the pay table does make a difference when you play. But, even you say, Arc, that it is possible to win on negative games. So "immaterial" is the wrong word. Yet, Singer does say -- and he has said it publicly -- that he will always play on the best paytables available.

But is that the issue here?

[Rob.Singer]

Alan here's the truth about what I've written many times and said, and isn't it surprising that you are very close to it while others can't do it?

Any paytable can be beaten on any given day and I've proven that over and over again - as have many, many players. But when I choose a casino to play in, I will always play at the best paytables available in that casino for the games within my play strategy.

When I did a reading study I found Lenny Fromm say that that 86% number was ninety-something percent. But while compulsive, long-hour zombie-like "advantage players" will always readily agree that this stat is likely true, they will forever caveat it by claiming how unrealistic it might be for some of them to quit playing whenever they get up by five or ten credits. Of course this foolish scramble is beyond the true point, but what they clam up on after that is in how this concept is precisely how and why my goal-oriented strategy is so successful, and why the soft profit pool of cashouts plays such a big part in my overall yearly winnings totals....and game EV, ER, or paytables have very, very little to do with any of it.

These people get so hilariously tongue-tied at just the right moments.

[Rob.Singer]

Now onto Eddie's misconception about playing a million hands. First off, if I played a million hands during my +$984,000 profit run directly and only from the machines as a pro, I'd be surprised. But what the heck kind of geek would find such a stat about how many hands they've played interesting anyway? The only important statistic is HOW MUCH MONEY was won. Even if the exact same deals came up for the silly AP as well as for me, I would be far, far ahead of his results by the end. IF I played SPS.

Why? Because of goals, because of games, because of a 6-level progression where the first and foremost goal is to always go down in denomination after winning, because of the 40+credit cashout requirement, and because of a restart at the lowest denomination and less volatile game upon attaining a $2500 minimum win goal. Why do you think none of the "experts" have ever agreed to bet me in a live, witnessed play arena? Heck, they can't even get up the courage to live-debate me!

[arcimede$]

Well, I wouldn't say that the return of the game is "immaterial" because the pay table does make a difference when you play. But, even you say, Arc, that it is possible to win on negative games. So "immaterial" is the wrong word. Yet, Singer does say -- and he has said it publicly -- that he will always play on the best paytables available.

But is that the issue here?

You missed it. Singer just did it again. He said the best pay tables within his system. That means he won't play 100.75% FPDW and would instead opt for 7/5 BP and 8/5 DDB.

And yes, anyone can win on a given day. If that's all you're interested in then you should quit even if you are only 5 credits ahead after the first hand. If, however, you are more concerned with your overall results then you need to quit making claims about a single day. You need to understand what your results will be for many days. Once you decide to worry about more than a single day then everything I've been telling you is most important.

[Alan Mendelson]

You missed it. Singer just did it again. He said the best pay tables within his system. That means he won't play 100.75% FPDW and would instead opt for 7/5 BP and 8/5 DDB.

I think you're going off on a tangent here, Arc. I wouldnt play 100.75% FPDW either because I don't know enough about playing that game correctly. I think it's only fair that any player play the game that they know best. Sure, a paytable on 100.75% FPDW will help you, but if you don't know how to properly play the game, then the favorable pay table does you no good.

I could probably be a speech writer. But I would not be a good speech writer, so it makes more sense for me to do what I know how to do which is to make TV programs.

The same analogy applies to video poker: I probably could play FPDW, but I wouldn't play it well. So it makes more sense for me to stick with 8/5 Bonus which I feel I play perfectly.

[arcimede$]

Now onto Eddie's misconception about playing a million hands. First off, if I played a million hands during my +$984,000 profit run directly and only from the machines as a pro, I'd be surprised. But what the heck kind of geek would find such a stat about how many hands they've played interesting anyway? The only important statistic is HOW MUCH MONEY was won. Even if the exact same deals came up for the silly AP as well as for me, I would be far, far ahead of his results by the end. IF I played SPS.

Nonsense. Somehow all those losing hands disappear because of a progression. Only a complete moron would believe this tripe.

I suspect his claimed 300+ sessions would lead to more than a million hands.

Why? Because of goals, because of games, because of a 6-level progression where the first and foremost goal is to always go down in denomination after winning, because of the 40+credit cashout requirement, and because of a restart at the lowest denomination and less volatile game upon attaining a $2500 minimum win goal. Why do you think none of the "experts" have ever agreed to bet me in a live, witnessed play arena? Heck, they can't even get up the courage to live-debate me!

Quite simple really. The experts already know you're lying ... just like your lies about your 4500 sqft residence. No intelligent person is going to waste their time with a moron claiming 2+2 = 5 (when mixed with a special magic elixir). Only fools fall for that kind of BS.

And, to make this even more hysterical Singer even admitted he played 6 levels only 3 times. Yet here he is claiming that his what he did. Lies, lies and more lies.

[Rob.Singer]

I think you're going off on a tangent here, Arc. I wouldnt play 100.75% FPDW either because I don't know enough about playing that game correctly. I think it's only fair that any player play the game that they know best. Sure, a paytable on 100.75% FPDW will help you, but if you don't know how to properly play the game, then the favorable pay table does you no good.

I could probably be a speech writer. But I would not be a good speech writer, so it makes more sense for me to do what I know how to do which is to make TV programs.

The same analogy applies to video poker: I probably could play FPDW, but I wouldn't play it well. So it makes more sense for me to stick with 8/5 Bonus which I feel I play perfectly.

Alan you're arguing with someone just trying to fill in his lonely, sad down time up on the tundra. Anyone would have seen my ENTIRE statement that said "I play the best available paytables FOR THE GAMES WITHIN MY PLAY STRATEGY." FPDW or any other gimmicky wild card game cannot be beaten on a regular basis, 96%, 101% or 105%.

[arcimede$]

I think you're going off on a tangent here, Arc. I wouldnt play 100.75% FPDW either because I don't know enough about playing that game correctly. I think it's only fair that any player play the game that they know best. Sure, a paytable on 100.75% FPDW will help you, but if you don't know how to properly play the game, then the favorable pay table does you no good.

I could probably be a speech writer. But I would not be a good speech writer, so it makes more sense for me to do what I know how to do which is to make TV programs.

The same analogy applies to video poker: I probably could play FPDW, but I wouldn't play it well. So it makes more sense for me to stick with 8/5 Bonus which I feel I play perfectly.

If that were your only options then that might make sense. However, you have other options. The main one is you could learn how to play FPDW and play perfectly at a better game. Another less intelligent option would be determine how much your lack of knowledge would cost you. If you play FPDW about 1% below optimal then you would still be better than BP.

I think you're smart enough to select one of these two options if you had high denom FPDW available.

[Alan Mendelson]

Can't argue with you on that Arc. But FPDW ain't around where I play. The closest I got to anything good on DW was in the high limit room at Rio where they have a ten play Colorado Deuces game.

[arcimede$]

Alan you're arguing with someone just trying to fill in his lonely, sad down time up on the tundra. Anyone would have seen my ENTIRE statement that said "I play the best available paytables FOR THE GAMES WITHIN MY PLAY STRATEGY." FPDW or any other gimmicky wild card game cannot be beaten on a regular basis, 96%, 101% or 105%.

Lies, lies and more lies.

[arcimede$]

Can't argue with you on that Arc. But FPDW ain't around where I play. The closest I got to anything good on DW was in the high limit room at Rio where they have a ten play Colorado Deuces game.

Back to the point. Singer claims he won't play high return games even if they were available. Think about it.

[Rob.Singer]

Can't argue with you on that Arc. But FPDW ain't around where I play. The closest I got to anything good on DW was in the high limit room at Rio where they have a ten play Colorado Deuces game.

Gee, I seem to recall an AP who packed up and moved to LV just to be closer to the FPDW games, and the result was frightening, like losing the tiny duplex, packing on the pounds from all those "free" local casino diner meals, and scrambling back home for the healthcare that should have been considered prior to thinking a gambling habit could be curbed in LV

With just two hands of any significance that could end sessions, FPDW is a fool's game.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, that is my problem with all DW games. The only real "pays" are on a royal, or the quad ducks. It's actually a boring game. But I can see the value in playing it if you just want to rack up "points."

[arcimede$]

Gee, I seem to recall an AP who packed up and moved to LV just to be closer to the FPDW games, and the result was frightening, like losing the tiny duplex, packing on the pounds from all those "free" local casino diner meals, and scrambling back home for the healthcare that should have been considered prior to thinking a gambling habit could be curbed in LV

With just two hands of any significance that could end sessions, FPDW is a fool's game.

Who would that be? Nothing there describes anything to do with me. Once again an example of Singer's lies.

[a2a3dseddie]

I didn't want to comment on this question originally, but I feel forced to. Your question is absurd.
First you say a video poker machine randomly generates one million hands and you have one "computer perfect" player at that machine, and then as a "test" you have an identical machine generating the same exact hands with the same potential draw cards being played by another player. Do you see the flaw from the outset?

No two players ever get the same combination of cards, in the same order, with the same bankroll, with the same emotions, playing video poker. This is truly a "dream problem" because there is no reality attached to it.

Of course, you can "dream up" whatever you want to, and you math guys in your theoretical world don't take into consideration human emotions when it comes to play such as the emotions that come into play with win goals and loss limits.

So let's test your emotions, if that is possible. What would you do if there was the "video poker" version of a person putting his entire life savings on the spin of a roulette wheel?

In our video poker life savings test all of your money is at stake and you are dealt four to the royal with a flush. If you hold the flush you break even. If you get the royal you win 47 times your current wealth. But if you don't get the royal (even if you draw another flush) you lose everything and live in poverty forever. What do you do?

Hey, the math says go for it, doesn't it? The math says yes, because you have a 1 out of 47 chance to get 47-times your wealth. There is no house edge and no house advantage on this bet. Would you take the gamble? If you say no to this bet, you are not doing the math -- and you are using your emotion.

In fact, I'm going to make the "math problem" even easier for you math advocates to answer. Instead of winning 47 times your wealth, you can win 48 times your wealth. You now have the edge!! What do you do? And if you say, again, no -- it's because you are using your emotion and not considering only the math.

Alan, I was trying to introduce this simplified thought exercise to try and show you that having win goals and stop limits would not work. Look at it another way. Does the casino care who plays 1 million hands on their machine? No, they only care that millions of hands get played and that their built in edge earns them a profit.

You seem to think that by having win goals and loss limits will somehow help guarantee you a long term net profit. As regnis has also stated, he looks at each session individually with win goals and loss limits.

I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, AND USE THEM MYSELF SINCE I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER.

But I also realize that unless the sum total of all my "sessions" results in a positve number, then I have lost money overall. I do not even for a second think that only I will play the "profitable" sessions on any machine, leaving the losing sessions for all the other gamblers to endure. Maybe Rob who proclaims he can detect the hot and cold cycles of machines, determine which machines are not random, and know when to switch machines can do it, but I cannot.

As far as progression betting goes, in a game of chance since when does the size of your bet change the odds against you?