The Sisyphean Gambler

[Alan Mendelson]

I asked my friend who goes to casinos a lot: "Do you have a gambling problem?"
He said to me: "Only when I lose."

[Rob.Singer]

Thanks for responding to my question so quickly, Alan. It's fun to read these forums.

You mentioned that it makes no difference when we push the button, because we have no idea where the cards are in the "continuous shuffle" process. I partially agree and disagree with this. To me, it actually makes all the difference in the world when to press the button...for that is what ultimately determines the final outcome. It's only the lack of knowing when to do it that stops us.

I agree with you on the 4-to-the-royal draws being the exciting and perhaps nerve-racking events that they are. I've been reasonably lucky with those.

On a related note, this is for Rob Singer: Hello. I wanted to ask: I once heard a rumor a while back that you undergo a special physical ritual of some sort when you are dealt three-of-a-kind before you draw for the quad. Is this rumor true? If so, is it used to press the DRAW button at a good time for the quad?

Yeah, that was something odd I used to do as an AP but it was just for fun. As you know, AP's have little to no fun playing, and I was willing to try anything short of making believe my freebies, cash back and comps could turn each losing year into a winning year--like you see them all do even today.

One point of clarification, and I've said this before: I had an IGT machine that I ran thru vigorous test procedures for nearly three full months of non-stop operation. I wasn't specifically testing for it, but I discovered the "continuous shuffle theory" which I always thought was true because that's what I've always read about being the case, does not occur. The machine does not "shuffle" numbers while it is not being played, and it does not shuffle them while it is waiting for the player to hit the draw button. It only shuffled when the Bet One Credit, Max Bet, or Draw buttons are activated--or pushed. During that relatively lengthy amount of time it takes that analog/mechanical function to process, the digital shuffle occurs. This isn't a big deal because it does nothing to change the "randomness" of your hand. But where the rumor about a continuous shuffle came from I have no idea. Some things you can't even get a good handle on by reading or asking--you have to find out for yourself I guess.

[slingshot]

So does this mean that people who lose a lot at VP don't have a "gambling problem"? Rather, it's just a "timing problem", strictly speaking? I must say, though, if everyone could solve their "timing problems" the casinos would be out of business LOL!

That's why I NEVER even think aobut it. Especially after watching everyone WAIT at the slots for a few minutes or pull their slot card in and out of the reader, or whatever any other habit they have to "make" the machine hit. My idea of timing is being at the right MACHINE at the right time. Same with picking the right cards-and yesterday was the prime example. I was playing a 3-play nickel machine with max credits (45) and the machine started out like gangbusters and I was doing fine=about $20 ahead when it suddenly quit-all high cards starting giving NOTHING-not even a pair. So whenever I realized my money was disappearing I set a win goal of just $10, since it was already down to $15. So, whenever a K with a suited 5 and a J with a suited 6 popped up I just swept the whole thing and on the top line was 4 2's w/kicker and a $120 hit and I was outa there. Sorry to say this again-but I'm glad I read Rob's articles.

[Count Room]

Rob:

Thanks for taking my question. Your answer was an intriguing one and I won't necessarily disagree with it for I can only go by what I've read on the RNG topic through the Internet. I realize you don't have much respect for the inhabitants of LVA, but they covered a lot of ground on this issue too with many different sources chipping in:
http://lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/mes...E=&STARTPAGE=1

I have to remain neutral since I'm not planning on buying and hauling a VP machine to my house anytime soon (it would be nice to be certain, though, especially for those 3 Aces draws and 4-to-the-royal draws).

[Alan Mendelson]

I can only go by the news reports and statements that I read. It was on the record from the company that the modern machines have continuous shuffle. If they don't it doesn't matter, as long as they don't use "shadow cards." Because with shadow cards, if a card you need is in the shadow of a card you hold, you will never be able to complete the hand you want.

At least with sequential shuffle and deal, and continuous shuffle and deal you have a fair shot at all the remaining cards in the deck.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you wrote: "An advantage player always has the advantage. It occurs on every hand. The reason I continue to play is I still have the advantage and, over time, will make more money by continuing to play."

This is where you and I have the "great disconnect." You can have all the advantage in the world, but if you lose the hand, you lost. Advantage or no advantage. This is where your "theory" doesn't meet reality. I know plenty of gamblers who say to themselves -- I should have won. I had the advantage. But they lost.

You can't take theoretical advantage to the bank. Period.

Alan, go back and study my coin toss example. It is exactly the same as playing VP with an edge only with a much lower variance. It allows you to think about each hand/toss individually. In fact, try it for a while marking down your wins and losses. If you really want to understand what I'm telling you this is one way.

And yes, no one knows when they are at the "peak" of their session. And sometimes you just have to say to yourself that you won "enough" and you don't want to risk giving it back. Arc, as an AP who is stuck on the math, you lack the human emotions to make that decision. Really. You think like a machine. And as I said before, it seems that only AP video poker players think like machines. Everyone else can look at their winnings and say "it's time to quit for the day, or the night, ot the trip." They do it in craps and live poker and in slots and in the carnival games... but you APers can't stop. You must have convinced yourselves that "the big one is coming."

It amazes me that "advantage video poker players" can't think with emotion. Maybe that's good, because maybe you are also immune to fear and greed. On the other hand your math and devotion to it could drive you into oblivion because you believe that during a cold run the math will even out and you will hit a winner.

One of the reasons a good APer likes a big edge is because it removes much of the problem associated with cold spells. The coin toss example I provided has a 20% edge. It's easy to see why you get ahead quickly and even if you have a cold spell it can quickly be made up. The smaller the edge the greater the risk and the bigger the bankroll required to survive the cold spells.

I think it's kind of humorous that you go on and on about not being able to have a guaranteed win, yet you fall back on a strategy to quit when you are ahead. How did you ever get ahead? Doesn't it take a few winners to get ahead?

[arcimede$]

What else does arci have if he doesn't create the belief to himself, while thinking he's impressing some with his silly advantage play talk, that he plays with a theoretical advantage--which can only means he WINS of course.

No, it means means I win more than I lose. The coin toss example I gave is a great way to visualize the process. Only half the time does a person win the toss, but since they win more than they lose on the failed tosses, the net result is winning. This is precisely what happens with VP too.

Can anything happen outside the boundaries of his math books? BLASPHEMY!! Just like that nonsense theory he put up that no one bothered looking at claiming it's proof I haven't & couldnt't be successful with SPS, he would not know what to do with a clean set of actuals. Or without his ding-don't bell curve....

No, it is possible you could be successful. Any player that plays like you has a .03% chance of winning what you claim to have won. And, the math books only apply to math problems. It just happens that VP is a math problem. Like it or not, that is reality and all your silly assertions will never change that fact.

I believe if arci ever accepted something so basic such as how real his personal challenges are these days, rather than making believe it just isn't true because it's so far from his expectation of years ago, it'll take the ding--which he himself created and asked for/deserves btw--right out of his dong. Then regular people may be able to get through the massive amount of denial he protects himself with.

More lies from the dufus. Once again asserting things he couldn't possibly know. So, since the dufus is so interested ... I gambled today. I got ahead by about $400 but lost it and was down about $1300 when I hit a royal. I put $100 in the next machine and, while waiting to be payed, I turned that into $500. I left ahead $3000. So, I went against what the dufus claims to be smart play and look what happened. That's how it is with random games. However, since I'm playing with an edge I win more than I lose.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc you write nonsense, but you don't even realize it. You wrote: The coin toss example I provided has a 20% edge.

Now, is there a video poker game with a 20% edge? Is there any game in a casino with a 20% edge? Why do you math guys come up with preposterous examples to prove that you are right?

Stop giving me 50-50 coin tosses with two results (heads or tails) to explain video poker which has either 52 or 53 cards. Stop giving me coin tosses to explain craps which has two dice with 36 combinations. (Not you Arc, but other "math guys" also use coin tosses to explain their craps strategies.)

And instead address the real issue here: quitting when you're ahead.

You know Arc, if I polled a thousand gamblers in Las Vegas and asked them if it is OK to quit when they have a profit I'd bet ya that only the AP video poker players would question my question.

And if I refined the question to this: Is it okay to quit after you have a 20% gain on your bankroll? I think a large majority would say yes. The new stats from the LVCVA says that the average gambler has a $480 gambling budget. I concede that there are some players who would be willing to risk it all to win big, but those of us who are in a casino more than twice a year would welcome the chance to increase our bankroll by 20% each visit.

[arcimede$]

Alan, the coin toss example lets you follow what is happening in a random series of events. It just makes it simpler but is based on exactly the same math as VP. If you don't like the 20% edge, make it smaller. Instead of winning $12 change it to $10.20. It won't change anything but the speed at which you make money.

I can see why you don't want to follow that exercise. It would blow your entire argument which is based on nothing but poor reasoning skills.

BTW, you can poll as many people as you want, it won't change the facts. All it might demonstrate is how many gamblers don't understand simple math. However, make sure to ask the question correctly. No math person would claim it's bad to quit when a person is ahead. All they would say is it won't change a person's expectation vs. quitting any other time. I keep explaining this to you and yet you keep going back to claiming math people say it is bad to quit when a person is ahead. At least try to follow what's been said. You are stuck in a loop. It's making you look like a idiot.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, the coin toss is a 50-50 example. It has nothing to do with video poker. Give it up. The emperor has no clothes.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, why are you so stubborn. You only read what you want to read. Here it is again, you wrote: No math person would claim it's bad to quit when a person is ahead. All they would say is it won't change a person's expectation vs. quitting any other time.

What you are forgetting is the second part which is the concept of money management. Every time you quit when you are ahead, using money management, you are increasing your profits and your bankroll. You are locking up profits, rather than risking the profits to keep playing. You set a win goal which triggers your decision to quit playing, to lock up what you have.

At the same time, your money management defines your loss limit.

Do you get it now?

[redietz]

Again, simple questions for everyone: what would prove the quitting-while-ahead theory wrong? And what is wrong with running simulations to test it?

[Alan Mendelson]

What simulation?? You simply go into a casino and determine what percentage increase in your bankroll will make you happy -- and cash out when you hit that mark. On the other hand, you set a firm loss limit for each session so that your future wins can be big enough to offset previous losses.

Curiously, when you look at Rob's system and the way he plays, his win goal is about 5% but he is also starting with a huge bankroll and will play up to $100 machines.

If I use a bankroll of $2500 per visit, 5% for me would be $125... which isn't exactly a bad pay day. And if a bank account paid 5% per day, we'd all be millionaires PDQ.

This weekend I have an offer at Caesars for $2500 free play. I am going to keep track of the free play and let you know how many hands it takes for me to show a $125 profit playing 8/5 Bonus. On a $5 per coin machine, two pair would give me a $25 profit, three of a kind would give me a $50 profit. One full house pays $200. Meanwhile jacks or better is a push. Of course I am well aware of the possibility that I could lose 100 hands in a row and never be ahead.

Have I sat down at a machine and lost 10 hands in a row? Sure I have. But I have also sat down at machines and been dealt a full house. And the very first time I sat down at an 8/5 Bonus game at the $5 level my third hand was quad aces.

(By the way, my strategy for this weekend is like the last time... to play the $2500 through once to see what I end up with. However, the longer I keep playing may mean either more profit than $125 or some loss of the $2500 starting bankroll. So the real "test" is when I reach the $125 profit level... if I do, of course. Yes, there is a risk that I won't reach a $125 profit, but on the flip side I am sure to bank some of the starting free play bankroll.)

You can run all the simulations you like. I'm going to do it with real money this weekend.

[Count Room]

Good news for you, Alan:

You would have been 1.3 quintillion times more likely to have hit the big Mega Millions jackpot last month than to lose 100 hands of 8/5 BP in a row on your trip. You'll get something out of it.

[Rob.Singer]

I'll sneak this little tidbit in: Did you notice how FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME arci tried to appear as a normal human being by telling a forum that he was losing....only to minutes later, as he's done ever since Al Gore invented the Internet, to THEN say he didn't lose at all--because he hit yet another royal! Phew! Man oh man, I'm sure glad he put any rumor of our having to worry about more hard & challenging times up in the arci household, to rest again!

And people wonder why I have so much fun with this guy.....!

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob I was going to put it a different way.... had he not hit that button at the precise instant he did, he would have still been down $1300 and probably a lot more too. LOL

Had he not hit the royal, he would have felt sick not cashing out a $400 profit earlier.

I have no delusions about hitting royals. So I'd take the $400 profit any day... and any time. Heck, that's $2,000 after a five day work week in a casino... $104,000 a year. Is there something wrong with making an extra $104,000 a year as a side job pushing buttons for an hour?

[Rob.Singer]

I understand and agree. It's just hilarious though how big AP winners like he, Jean Scott, that fedomally over on LVA, etc. find it totally impossible to ever say they have lost or are involved in a losing streak without their famous caveat of telling everyone not to worry because they have already hit that big winner that got them back on track. It's like they just can't take the terrible, devastating thought of what others will be thinking if these superstars didn't reassure everyone that not only will it all be OK in the end, but that it IS OK right now! I have never seen any of these heroes, including Bob Dancer, ever say they are currently in the grasp of a losing streak without the ensuing feel-good caveats.

[arcimede$]

Arc, the coin toss is a 50-50 example. It has nothing to do with video poker. Give it up. The emperor has no clothes.

Alan, a coin toss is a random event with a set of possible results. Each toss is independent. It is simpler than VP but the math is the same. That's why it is a good way to understand how the math works out in a real situation.

Once more I see you don't want to know the truth. You would rather keep spewing nonsense.

[arcimede$]

I understand and agree. It's just hilarious though how big AP winners like he, Jean Scott, that fedomally over on LVA, etc. find it totally impossible to ever say they have lost or are involved in a losing streak without their famous caveat of telling everyone not to worry because they have already hit that big winner that got them back on track. It's like they just can't take the terrible, devastating thought of what others will be thinking if these superstars didn't reassure everyone that not only will it all be OK in the end, but that it IS OK right now! I have never seen any of these heroes, including Bob Dancer, ever say they are currently in the grasp of a losing streak without the ensuing feel-good caveats.

Once again we see the dufus making assertions that he can't possibly know are true.

BTW, Dancer did discuss his losing the car promotion. So, in fact, we know the dufus is lying yet again. There's a reason the dufus is laughed at everywhere he posts.

As for me, I've had many losing streaks which I've mentioned many times. However, they do end as do winning streaks. That's what happens in random games. Anyone who plays the game and claims they do not have losing streaks is a liar .... oh wait, the only one I know who does that is the dufus.

[Rob.Singer]

I hit that nerve once again You can always tell whenever arci gets right to the justifications. Problem is, he never gets them right. We already know his own excuses are a simple product of the misery he chose for his declining years, but as for Dancer, I guess he missed the part about how after blabbing about once again winning another $40.000 car that cost him double, he told us all that it was nothing because "he expects swings like that, and he's ahead for the year six figures anyway"!

Absolutely HILARIOUS! Please arci, do your homework next time. Whatever happened to the anal you? Oh I know....you've created household pressures that only an AP's mother could love. I guess that's why we didn't see you guys at the Paris for dinner last evening.