Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
Um, gee, I don't remember if Arc's simulation was done on a day when I had a $2500 loss limit or it was a day when I had a $500 loss limit. I also don't remember if I was playing Aces and Faces or if I was playing Double Double Bonus. I also don't remember if his simulation was for a fixed $500 win goal or if it was for a flexible win goal where I adjusted a rising stop loss.

But then it doesn't matter. Arc will present a simulation of a negative expectation game, and every simulation of a negative expectation game if played (simulated) long enough will show that you lose. Just as every simulation of a positive expectation game if played (simulated) long enough will show that you win. What is the point of a simulation? It's more of Arc's 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

(Surprise Arc, I agree 2+2 does not equal 5.)

I think I have had enough of you guys challenging me about using win goals and loss limits. I use them. You don't. You play your way, and I'll play my way. The difference is I know in advance when I have lost enough and if I win a nice amount I know I will be able to go home with it and enjoy it and return another to play again. Once again, I ask you to show me the math that says that is wrong? Where is the math?

Where is the math?
Where is the math?
Where is the math?
Ok, so then you reject VP simulations even though that is exactly what VP manufacturers pitch to casino owners to get them to put their machines into the casinos.

What "math" are you looking for then?

Alan, it's okay to admit you are wrong or have been misguided. I personally hold / give more respect to someone who can admit their mistakes.