The Sisyphean Gambler

[Alan Mendelson]

The only problem with your last claim is the use of the word "when". It is not true that a person will always win. They won't as any gambler with a working memory can tell you. That's why your fantasy world eventually falls apart.

Arc do I have to educate you about the meaning of the word "when" and that "when" does not mean you will win when gambling? "When" means "when" and it does not mean "you will." You argue the silliest points.

[redietz]

Awww, I see. "And when you keep coming home with the money" is not meant here as a prediction, but as an absurdity, as in "And when pigs learn to fly." That makes more sense now.

[Alan Mendelson]

"WHEN". As in expressing a condition.

Would you like to argue about the number of gunmen in the JFK assassination?

[arcimede$]

"WHEN". As in expressing a condition.

One big problem, Alan. Your next sentence was "when you keep coming home with the money you can BEAT the theoretical long term."

The only way for you to "beat" the odds is for "when" to be a non-conditional usage, that is, using it temporally.

Now, if you really meant it conditionally then you must agree that you can't "BEAT the theoretical long term". Is that right?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc: the answer is in your own statement. You keep talking about "theoretical long term." Hint: you can't bank theory. But I think we've had this discussion before.

Vegas Vic: keep banking those royals. Forget about the theoretical. You can beat it. After all, the theoretical is only theoretical.

[arcimede$]

Arc: the answer is in your own statement. You keep talking about "theoretical long term." Hint: you can't bank theory. But I think we've had this discussion before.

No, you brought it up.

No one "banking theory". That is simply an erroneous view of the situation on your part. I've corrected you many times, but you revert right back to one-liners like this in order to avoid reality. You would rather believe you add 2+2+2+2 and get 10. Sorry, not in this universe.

[Alan Mendelson]

You are absurd. Never did I say anything like 2+2+2+2=10. What I did was point out that your theory is only theory. And putting real wins in your pocket is the only thing that will pay the bills. Join the real world.

[Vegas Vic]

Arc: the answer is in your own statement. You keep talking about "theoretical long term." Hint: you can't bank theory. But I think we've had this discussion before.

Vegas Vic: keep banking those royals. Forget about the theoretical. You can beat it. After all, the theoretical is only theoretical.

26 royals since I started playing VP in September of 2004 and I don't play nearly as much as the rest of you in the forum. Sometimes a player gets lucky. I've only had one dealt and what seems to be a bazillion foyals that came up empty.

[arcimede$]

You are absurd. Never did I say anything like 2+2+2+2=10. What I did was point out that your theory is only theory. And putting real wins in your pocket is the only thing that will pay the bills. Join the real world.

Nope, not theory. It is mathematics. Obviously, you don't realize they are different. Theories cannot be proven. Math can be proven.

You're trying to claim you can beat the game by cashing out at a particular time. The game is essentially a sequence of events added together. You are claiming you can change your results to do better than the mathematical computations show, hence, you are claiming the same thing as 2+2+2+2 = 10.

[arcimede$]

26 royals since I started playing VP in September of 2004 and I don't play nearly as much as the rest of you in the forum. Sometimes a player gets lucky. I've only had one dealt and what seems to be a bazillion foyals that came up empty.

About 1 in 16 RFs are dealt. So, you are in the normal range.

[redietz]

Wow, arci, that was a hellacious editorial summation there regarding non-conditionality. Was clearer than anything I was likely to say if you gave me a month.

[Alan Mendelson]

You're trying to claim you can beat the game by cashing out at a particular time. .

NO. The point is that when you cash out can help you beat the game.

[arcimede$]

NO. The point is that when you cash out can help you beat the game.

No it can't. Go back and read my analogy with baseball. Try flipping some coins and setting a win goal. See what happens.

You are claiming a betting system "can help you beat the game" which has been PROVEN to be false. No one is talking theory here, Alan. This is mathematics.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, let me see if I can finally get you to understand.

Unless you know when to quit (which is when you have a profit) you run the risk of never having a profit.

If you continue playing -- even at your positive expectation game of one eye jacks --you run the risk of running out of money at some point because you hit a "cold run" you were not prepared for.

But by cashing out your wins, and banking them, you give yourself the ability to build up "reserves" that allow you to get through the droughts and the slumps.

Now, by cashing out at certain win goals (and your win goals for each session can increase if your wins are greater than your initial win-goal) you will be building up these reserves.

If you continue to play without deciding on a point to cash out at each session you run the risk of finishing each session with a loss -- and never having a profit.

Now, does that add up for you yet??

[redietz]

And that's why one plays a positive expectation game.

Flip the idea around -- actually the coin flipping was a good analogy. If you are getting a humongous positive return, say, 50%, it makes no sense whatsoever to cut your sessions short so as to "bank wins." Obviously, if you have a 50% edge, you should just keep playing. Well, if the edge is just .5%, the same logic applies, although risk of ruin comes into play to a much greater degree. But stopping really won't affect your risk of ruin, so again, it makes no sense to stop.

Stop and think hard. If we agree that it makes zero sense, except for fatigue (which does count in vp), to stop playing a game with a 50% edge, how does the logic change when the edge is smaller? And at what point in the edge would the "new logic" of quitting when ahead kick in? Would it be when your edge was 40%? No? How about 20%? Still no? 10%? Five percent?

Do you see the logical flaw?

[Alan Mendelson]

First of all, I am glad you concede that video poker is not like flipping a coin, and I really question whether the "edge" is 0.5%.

Second, even if there is an edge of 0.5 percent you'd be better off putting your money into a money market fund or government insured bond or bank CD than putting it at risk in video poker.

Third, you raised the issue of risk of ruin, but you ignore it.

You also ignore the value of quitting with a profit --any profit -- instead of continuing to gamble and losing your profit and ending up with a loss.

I think it is time for you to finally consider -- and this is something that Arc still doesn't consider -- the positives that quitting with a profit -- ANY PROFIT -- presents. Even when you leave the casino with a gain of one dollar you won't have to drive home looking at a dumb schmuck in the rear view mirror.

[redietz]

And this is where the saying of the superhost in "Whale Hunt in the Desert" comes into play -- "eat like birds and shit like bears." There are a lot of players who value putting a slash in the "Win" column, as if accumulating wins in 80% of sessions actually means something. It doesn't, unless you've made a bet about how many sessions you can win. What matters is the cumulative bottom line.

I didn't ignore risk of ruin -- I just point out that "banking a win" doesn't affect it, unless you decide to never play again. Otherwise, ongoing risk of ruin just picks up where you left off when you stopped.

[arcimede$]

Arc, let me see if I can finally get you to understand.

Unless you know when to quit (which is when you have a profit) you run the risk of never having a profit.

If you continue playing -- even at your positive expectation game of one eye jacks --you run the risk of running out of money at some point because you hit a "cold run" you were not prepared for.

But by cashing out your wins, and banking them, you give yourself the ability to build up "reserves" that allow you to get through the droughts and the slumps.

Unless, of course, you were in a hot streak and you would have won much more money. By cashing out you risk coming back when the machines are cold and losing everything you won previously and more.

You see how easy it is to use words to create a scenario where a certain action looks logical. My scenario is just as likely as yours. The fact is neither scenario is valid. Either one could happen at various times ... you know, because it's random.

Now, by cashing out at certain win goals (and your win goals for each session can increase if your wins are greater than your initial win-goal) you will be building up these reserves.

If you continue to play without deciding on a point to cash out at each session you run the risk of finishing each session with a loss -- and never having a profit.

Now, does that add up for you yet??

Nope, go back and read what I wrote above. You are trying to convince yourself that at some point in time your future hands are going to be loses but by leaving and returning at another point in time you will have wins instead. Your logic is wrong.

Frank gave up on you because you keep ignoring these simple facts.

[redietz]

And Alan, for the record, since you evaded the question, at what edge do you look to "bank wins?" We didn't pin that down. Would you keep playing with a 50% edge or stop? How about 20%? How do you decide when "banking wins" becomes valuable?

[arcimede$]

First of all, I am glad you concede that video poker is not like flipping a coin, and I really question whether the "edge" is 0.5%.

In many ways VP and flipping a coin are EXACTLY alike. The differences are actually pretty minor.

Second, even if there is an edge of 0.5 percent you'd be better off putting your money into a money market fund or government insured bond or bank CD than putting it at risk in video poker.

Nope, I explained this to you in the past. The .5% is not a yearly APR. It applies every time you put your bankroll through the machines. A pro does this every couple of weeks. Hence, a .5% edge comes out similar to a 13% APR.

Third, you raised the issue of risk of ruin, but you ignore it.

You also ignore the value of quitting with a profit --any profit -- instead of continuing to gamble and losing your profit and ending up with a loss.

Once again your assume you will lose the profit if you continue to play and do better on your next trip. That is nonsense. There is no reason to believe you won't do better if you keep playing then when you return in the future. They are both equally likely.

I think it is time for you to finally consider -- and this is something that Arc still doesn't consider -- the positives that quitting with a profit -- ANY PROFIT -- presents. Even when you leave the casino with a gain of one dollar you won't have to drive home looking at a dumb schmuck in the rear view mirror.

This is a memory issue. Alan remembers the times he lost after a big win while not remembering the times he continued to play and increased his wins. It's an emotional scar that influences his logic.