John Grochowski writes about money management.

[slingshot]

that with $5000 you wouldn't be at that machine for longer than $100 play-if at quarters.

[Alan Mendelson]

In fairness to Arci, and because it even gets tiresome screwing with him, his example Alan, with the $4,900 and $5,000 is showing you a return on the total amount wagered, not on your bankroll of $100.

Then he should communicate that it is the return on the amount wagered and not the expected return or ER of the game. He gets a fail for communication, if indeed that it is what he was trying to communicate. But Arc has been all over the map with his mish mosh mathematics and I lost track of his reasoning long ago. Next time he should try bread crumbs.

[arcimede$]

Then he should communicate that it is the return on the amount wagered and not the expected return or ER of the game. He gets a fail for communication, if indeed that it is what he was trying to communicate. But Arc has been all over the map with his mish mosh mathematics and I lost track of his reasoning long ago. Next time he should try bread crumbs.

Alan, here is what you said that I was responding to: "A player who loses their session bankroll each session will never see the ER of any video poker game whether that ER is 99.54% or 98% or whatever."

So, I explained exactly how a person could see the ER of the game and lose all their money. Maybe if you took some time to try and understand what I tell you we wouldn't have this problem. I hate to tell you this, Alan, but it has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you're unwillingness to accept the facts of gambling.

[arcimede$]

In fairness to Arci, and because it even gets tiresome screwing with him, his example Alan, with the $4,900 and $5,000 is showing you a return on the total amount wagered, not on your bankroll of $100. So if you are able to wager 5,000 total from your 100 buy in, and when you are done you have lost your 100 bankroll, you had returned 4,900 over the course of that play. You have lost 2% of the total wagered, not 2% of your bankroll. So even tho you lost your $100, and thus your actual loss is 100%, the return based on wagering 5,000 is -2%.

Yup, which could be the ER of the game .... which just happened to be the statement I was responding to.

Of course, only a mathematician would say he only lost 2%. You and I would say we lost 100%. And this is why he looks at a lifetime of play and we look at each session. Only one thing counts to me---how much is in my pocket when I leave the casino. I don't give a crap what my return was or what the ER was, or what the ER says I should have won or lost. And I don't care if I use a Singer special play going for the big hit once or twice a night because it cost me 3 cents over my lifetime.

Like everything in math it gets down to what question was asked. I would also say he lost 100% of his bankroll if that was the question. However, the statement Alan made was that he wouldn't experience the ER of the machine. The ER of a machine is the calculation I made.

And yes, I do get tired of you guys arguing with me when you are 100% wrong.

[arcimede$]

Arc, let me suggest something: communications is a two-way street. And so far the street you are on has a big sign at one end that says "Do Not Enter." You are not communicating. I don't understand your math, your examples or your analogies. You might be a brilliant mathematician, but you ain't communicating.

I saved this for last because it is so funny. You made a specific statement and I addressed that specific statement. You then claimed I was wrong based on nothing to do with the claim I was addressing.

Now, tell me again who isn't communicating? You do this all the time, Alan. You create your context based on what you want to believe and avoid even trying to understand what is explained.

[redietz]

Sometimes patience is a virtue. Sometimes not. Arci, your time would be better spent on something other than Alan -- other people, other sites could use your expertise and patient explanations. Let the stuff here fester.

Educating Alan on any of the points mentioned here is a waste of time -- it's like debating a creationist about Noah's flood. Nothing you say, no evidence, will make any difference. You can ask Alan what evidence would change his mind, and he has no answer. I mean, a mathematical proof is a mathematical proof. It becomes embarrassing to argue why a mathematical proof is evidence. Alan's not going to pass any college level probability course anytime soon, and he doesn't feel the need to. If folks believe what Alan says, caveat emptor. It's on Alan.

[regnis]

Red-I still have to disagree that the math is proof of anything. The math is just the probability of what will happen--it is not a guaranty of what will happen. We all know that the odds are defied every minute of every day. And maybe on a particular machine the combined results of all the players will ultimately hit the ER (but maybe not---does anyone have a summary of the long term results of any 1 or more machines). That is really the evidence that would settle this--but I don't know where it can be obtained. I guess you can look at the monthly reports of slot returns at the various casinos, but I am not sure if VP is broken out separately. I would bet that such results would show that the machines outperformed the ER, but that would mainly be from bad play.

[Alan Mendelson]

I still challenge any one to show me why a player couldn't have a profit playing on a negative expectation video poker game if they used win goals to cash out profits, and loss limits to keep them from losing too much money.

I also challenge anyone to show me why using win goals and loss limits can hurt a player who isn't winning.

I also challenge anyone to show me how a player who loses his entire session bankroll (whether it's $100 or $10,000) had a return that matched the ER of any video poker game now available in any casino (99.54%, 99.17%, etc.).

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, here is what you said that I was responding to: "A player who loses their session bankroll each session will never see the ER of any video poker game whether that ER is 99.54% or 98% or whatever."

So, I explained exactly how a person could see the ER of the game and lose all their money. Maybe if you took some time to try and understand what I tell you we wouldn't have this problem. I hate to tell you this, Alan, but it has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you're unwillingness to accept the facts of gambling.

My point is that the ER is only hand by hand. You NEVER see the ER of a game because no hand in VP pays 99.54% or 99.17%. The ER is only a theoretical result based on the pay table of a game.

You could say it was a trick question.

But you are so engrossed by "ER" that you had to do your mathematical mish mosh of turning return on the hands played into what you claim was the ER of the game, and they are in fact two different things. In other words Arc, you created new definitions to meet the needs of your argument. I caught you.

[arcimede$]

regnis, probability is different from a proof. Red was talking what I have provided, several times, the proof, I repeat PROOF, that no betting system can affect the return of a game (ER). Alan continues to argue that it can be done (win/loss goals) in spite of said proof. It's like arguing with a child. He's making a complete fool out of himself. You're not far behind trying to redefine what is being stated.

Alan, ER is not hand by hand. That is silly. It is an average return expected for a specific pay table. It NEVER applies to a single hand. Go back and read what you said:

"A player who loses their session bankroll each session will never see the ER of any video poker game whether that ER is 99.54% or 98% or whatever."

You never mention hand, in fact you specifically mention session. Your silly attempts to cover your mistakes only makes you look worse. You are in a hole and digging as fast as you can. You'd look much better to just admit you were wrong ... like that will ever happen.

[Alan Mendelson]

regnis, probability is different from a proof. Red was talking what I have provided, several times, the proof, I repeat PROOF, that no betting system can affect the return of a game (ER). Alan continues to argue that it can be done (win/loss goals) in spite of said proof.

This is absolute BULL**ST. Never have I said, nor has Rob Singer said, that win/loss goals will change the EXPECTED RETURN OF ANY GAME. The ER is the ER. But the ER does not mean that you can't win. And in the case of the "advantage players" the ER does not mean that you can't lose.

Now stop your bullsh**ting.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, are you ready to concede that arci is only here to fill in as much of that dead time they've been saddled with up there, and that he gains stimulation from posting lie after lie about what others have or have not said. He's a pathological lying machine. Put yourself in his shoes. How would you feel having that type of life while having to read about how normal people live?

Arguing about ER is the same as arguing about sports expectations next year, only you're dealing with an anal retentive character who makes believe he knows it all even when proven wrong. These AP's care whether they win or lose TODAY just as much as normal players do, only admitting to that digs into their self-justification for playing far more than they know they should. And setting win and loss goals AND STICKING TO THEM absolutely does improve actual return, thereby rendering all that sacred + or - ER completely meaningless once you look at your results "over time".

[arcimede$]

This is absolute BULL**ST. Never have I said, nor has Rob Singer said, that win/loss goals will change the EXPECTED RETURN OF ANY GAME. The ER is the ER. But the ER does not mean that you can't win. And in the case of the "advantage players" the ER does not mean that you can't lose.

Now stop your bullsh**ting.

Alan, this is what you just posted on the last page:

"I still challenge any one to show me why a player couldn't have a profit playing on a negative expectation video poker game if they used win goals to cash out profits, and loss limits to keep them from losing too much money."

Whether you realize it or not you are claiming win/loss goals will change the ER of a game. If a game is negative and you "have a profit" then the game is no longer negative. It must be positive to "have a profit".

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, this is what you just posted on the last page:

"I still challenge any one to show me why a player couldn't have a profit playing on a negative expectation video poker game if they used win goals to cash out profits, and loss limits to keep them from losing too much money."

Whether you realize it or not you are claiming win/loss goals will change the ER of a game. If a game is negative and you "have a profit" then the game is no longer negative. It must be positive to "have a profit".

He can't even lie right. I've consistently won and still do win even more consistently, on -EV only games....yet I know of NO INSTANCE where someone went back and said "Hey Rob, you made a profit on this negative game. How'd you change that ER!?"

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, this is what you just posted on the last page:

"I still challenge any one to show me why a player couldn't have a profit playing on a negative expectation video poker game if they used win goals to cash out profits, and loss limits to keep them from losing too much money."

Whether you realize it or not you are claiming win/loss goals will change the ER of a game. If a game is negative and you "have a profit" then the game is no longer negative. It must be positive to "have a profit".

Where the F--- did I say anything about changing the ER of the game? ER doesn't matter. The ER is only a guide to playing games that will give you a better chance of winning. Everyone agrees to that.

But... Mr ER Arcimedes, how much of a difference is there between an ER of 99.54% and an ER of 100.2% when you happen to hit a couple of quads on the 99.54% game and just keep missing on the 100.2% game?

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, I can only explain it this way. Somehow he has become so addicted to following the ER that it clouds his other thought processes. He actually lives and breathes and eats ER.

[arcimede$]

Where the F--- did I say anything about changing the ER of the game? ER doesn't matter.

As I pointed out above, you claimed you were changing the ER when you claimed you could be profitable on a negative ER game by simply using win/loss goals. You stated you can expect to win utilizing these goals. Hence, you are saying your "expected return" (ER) would be >100% on a game where random results would be <100%.

ER relates to the future. If you say your expected results in the future are profitable then you are saying you "expect" a "return" of > 100%

The ER is only a guide to playing games that will give you a better chance of winning. Everyone agrees to that.

The standard view of ER is the average return of a game (assuming perfect play). The actual return tends to form a bell curve around the ER. The position one finds oneself on the bell curve is due to nothing but luck. That is, those that see a higher frequency of better paying hands will be further to the right (better return). If a game is truly random there is nothing a person can do to influence where they appear. This is shown in the Richard Reid proof I have linked to before. In other words your choice of when you start or stop play is meaningless.

But... Mr ER Arcimedes, how much of a difference is there between an ER of 99.54% and an ER of 100.2% when you happen to hit a couple of quads on the 99.54% game and just keep missing on the 100.2% game?

That is the point I have been making over and over again. The actual return, your place on the bell curve, is determined by the frequency of winning hands. In order to do better than the ER you need to have a higher frequency of these hands. Nothing complicated here. The problem is a person can only press deal and draw to determine any particular hand's result. He cannot make a machine give him better hands. We are at the mercy of the RNG.

Fortunately, there is field called statistics that can help us understand the likelihood of having both good and bad results. So, we can understand our chances. It turns out the higher the ER the better our chances of success. While it is possible for a person playing a 99% game to do better than a person playing a 100% game, it is not likely. If one wants to give themselves the best chance of winning then playing better return games is the best answer.

Notice that win/loss goals cannot make a difference. Since each hand is independent the frequency of the various results will only depend on your luck. If you happen to be ahead at any given point in time your future expectation from that point on does not change based on when the next hand is played. That is the bottom line.

[arcimede$]

I use "expected return" to mean the average results a person can expect over time in the future. It actually has nothing to do with "optimal play return" which is often called "expected return" in various discussions. However, I think it is important that we make the distinction when getting into details.

None of us play perfectly. Hence, none of us can "expect" to achieve the "optimal play return". Our true "expected return" < "optimal play return". That doesn't mean we won't have an "actual return" > "optimal play return", it simply means the chances of doing so are less than 50%. And, the more errors we have, the lower our chances of beating the "optimal play return". And thus, our "expected return" becomes even worse. Over time we will approach our "expected return" which means the chances of beating the "optimal play return" becomes lower and lower. This is basic statistics.

You may have figured out that "expected return" is different for every player. The use of this term to mean "optimal play return" has probably confused this issue. That is why I have tried to separate them.

Now, what Alan has been saying is that he can be profitable on a negative return game employing win/loss goals. Using our more precise terminology he is saying that his "expected return" > "optimal play return". However, this is precisely what the Richard Reid proof found to be impossible. And, he proved it. That means it is not a matter of discussion. It is a fact. Now, on any given day our actual return, using any strategy, can be > than the "optimal play return". However, over time that "actual return" will approach our personal "expected return" which is always < "optimal play return".

[Alan Mendelson]

The problem that you are having -- and why this has gone on for what now must be hundreds of posts on the Internet -- comes down to this, and it really is a simple difference:

I use ER or expected return to be based on the pay table of the game.
You apparently use ER or expected return to be based on how the player plays the game.

However, I use how the player plays the game to be the actual return and not the expected return.

I would also use ER to be theoretical because it is "expected." I would use "actual return" to be real since it is what actually happened when play is completed.

So if you would start to think that how the player plays the game as actual return instead of expected return you would stop saying that win/loss goals would be an attempt to change the ER of games.

I think several of us have said this to you many, many times: Using win/loss goals does NOT change the expected return of any game.

Now, if you don't want to accept these definitions and if you want to persist using your own definitions, we could turn this into a marathon that will continue until both of us are either too old to type or that great black hole finally swallows up the Earth.

[arcimede$]

The problem that you are having -- and why this has gone on for what now must be hundreds of posts on the Internet -- comes down to this, and it really is a simple difference:

I use ER or expected return to be based on the pay table of the game.
You apparently use ER or expected return to be based on how the player plays the game.

However, I use how the player plays the game to be the actual return and not the expected return.

Actual means it has already happened. It is in the past. Done. Finished. It has nothing to do with future results. So, it makes no sense to use it for how a player plays the game. So ..... Maybe we need a new term. We could use "personal expected return" or pER. Then we could use "game expected return" (gER) to mean what I called optimal expected return and you called expected return. And, of course, we can use aER for the actual returns that a player sees after playing.

I would also use ER to be theoretical because it is "expected." I would use "actual return" to be real since it is what actually happened when play is completed.

But this leaves out a person's personal expected return. This takes into account the strategy used and the accuracy of play or anything else that a player uses in future play.

So if you would start to think that how the player plays the game as actual return instead of expected return you would stop saying that win/loss goals would be an attempt to change the ER of games.

I don't care about actual return in a discussion on strategy. Strategy is what drives our future play. We can talk about actual return when we want to brag or whine or as a check against our pER.

I think several of us have said this to you many, many times: Using win/loss goals does NOT change the expected return of any game.

That is why there needs to be a third term. A term that defines our own personal future expectation based on the strategy employed. That is why I would like to see gER used in place of ER above. Then we can also discuss our own personal expectation based on the strategy we use (pER).

So, what happens when we do this? It allows us to discuss the benefits of using win/loss goals, special plays, rabbit's feet, etc.. So, do win/loss goals increase your pER or don't they? That is the question.