John Grochowski writes about money management.

[arcimede$]

For anyone interested this is a google maps picture of my old townhome in Las Vegas.

https://www.google.com/maphp?q=las+v...245.88,,0,7.31

You have to love the technology.

I believe this is a view of the Apartment complex where Singer lived while claiming to live in a 4500+ sqft home.

https://www.google.com/maphp?q=phoen...izona&t=h&z=20

[arcimede$]

Well, then I don't understand what the heck we've been discussing then? I always said nothing changes the expectation. Expectation is expectation and nothing changes that math.

But then win goals and loss limits are not math driven. They are more psychological. They help you enjoy more.

You have stated more than once that win/loss goals can make a negative game profitable. That is what has been objected to.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, Alan, I have no idea if I'm playing positive expectation games. I put a sheet over the pay table and just sit down, you know, kind of like Las Vegas Caesars' customers.

Why single out Caesars? I think many video poker players play with no knowledge of correct strategy or even pay tables. I think I wrote here about a player at Rincon who was in the high limit room playing $5 Jacks or Better with an 8/5 PayTable (no progressives) while an 8/5 Aces and Faces game and an 8/5 Aces Bonu$ game were on the same machine. (I'm not sure what the Bonus game was on the machine he was playing.) And this guy was discussing the games he played on videopoker.com. Imagine that -- someone who goes to videopoker.com either didnt care about the pay table or didnt look at it.

[Vegas_lover]

Rob, you just can't quit with the personal attacks, can you? But let's see if Arc will take the high road now and not respond to you?

How peachy, you recognize yet another personal attack but expect somebody else to provide the solution. Great approach.

I might not agree with eveything Arci says but I will say this: he has provided a 1000% more background info on his claims than Rob. Rob has provided exactly nothing and still you're constantly asking Arci to prove his claims but somehow you don't really care about Rob not providing any evidence to back his claims.

Still you want us to believe you approach everybody in the same way. A deep look into the mirror would be in place.

[regnis]

Didn't your mama tell you 2 wrongs don't make a right.

sorry-forgot quotes

[regnis]

No, Alan, I have no idea if I'm playing positive expectation games. I put a sheet over the pay table and just sit down, you know, kind of like Las Vegas Caesars' customers.

I don't expect four deuces any given session, either.

Boy, that was tough to figure out.

If Rob isn't banned for this nonsense, I'm going to amp it up and dish it out in a similar fashion. I will post every day about some encounters Rob had with male hookers, and let him prove they didn't happen. If we're going to have freedom of speech regarding somebody's wife and property, we may as well extend it to their sex life.

Didn't your mama tell you 2 wrongs don't make a right

[Vegas_lover]

Didn't your mama tell you 2 wrongs don't make a right

Didn't your mama teach you to stand up for yourself if the courtyard bully keeps bugging you?

[regnis]

He ain't a bully--just a big mouth. My mama told me to ignore that type. Especially if he's wearing his speedo.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci has no way to take the high road because he got himself in too deep with his lies about our Phoenix (& Hawaii) homes. As someone who has always had to just scrape by, he has no clue what having an apt. in addition to owning two homes entails, and I'd guess he's never been to the islands either. And he MOST CERTAINLY is never gonna travel again! But he sure can dish out the lies about himself. Just poke the guy and watch him go into extreme fave-saving mode. Nv. foreclosure records are massive but true....unless arci's now finally proclaiming that the Nevada Gaming Regulations are also erroneous and not complete online.

Isn't that just like a hypocrite who's stuck in a no-way-out existence that is just another righteous way of saying "paying the piper"

[Rob.Singer]

He ain't a bully--just a big mouth. My mama told me to ignore that type. Especially if he's wearing his speedo.

And as mentioned many times, it's all welcomed with open arms by arci. What I do by exposing him is really taken as good deeds by him, despite his public display of restlessness and non-stop lying. Put yourself in his place for just a few moments--if you can take it, that is. Meld into his mindset. See the boredom....the helplessness....the continuous crying out to multiple vp forums for help in providing SOME reason to go on with provocative discussion? He just has to understand that NO ONE CARES about his or even my personal life, then he'll take it on the chin much better. His life's over my friends, and he knows it. I simply provide the means for his stimulation & distraction from a very distressing circumstance--in the few available instances I've been able to, given that we are actually LIVING our retirement dreams rather than suffering thru it all by writing dozens of posts from a care-facility that's supposed to fill in as a virtual life. Now tell me that if it were you going thru the agony he has to endure, you wouldn't see me as a life-saver in an ocean of fish who just don't give a damn.

[Alan Mendelson]

You have stated more than once that win/loss goals can make a negative game profitable. That is what has been objected to.

What I said was -- and perhaps the error was in my phrasing -- is that I can win and profit at a negative expectation game by using money management.

We had a similar discussion over on the Wizard of Vegas site and some one used a different phrasing which seemed to end the debate. He said something like "you can win at a negative expectation game even if you can't beat a negative expectation game."

And has been pointed out many times, people win at negative expectation games all the time. If you separate practice from theory it becomes more understandable. At the WOV site they seem to understand.

[redietz]

Another way to say that is, "If you have won at a negative expectation game, you're a damned fool to sit down at the same negative expectation game and expect to win."

I pick on Caesars/Harrah's because (1) Harrah's downgraded video poker at every property they took over, (2) they have lied about what would happen to stashed comps when they were about to take over properties, (3) despite linking large sports books and creating a monster book, they actually reduced the amounts you can bet at the books, (4) the sports book managers have little say on anything and aren't really managers any longer, (5) compared to how Binions treated WSOP players, Harrah's/Caesars treats them like peons, and stupid peons at that, (6) their buffets have become ridiculously overpriced at all properties, (7) they've instituted 6/5 blackjack and other garbage, (8) when taking over the Rio, they decided waitresses had to be "bevertainers," which gave them an out so they could cut all of the veteran waitresses, and so on.

I had to add some more -- when they began their all-day buffet pass, it was cheap. Well, in two years' time, they've doubled the price and add tariffs beyond the doubling for eating at CP. So they initiated what looked like a bargain price, then quickly made it a bad value price. Similarly, they touted "no resort fees" for years, then decided to launch big, fat resort fees for each property, including $18 a night for the Flamingo and Rio, which are not high end places these days. In addition, some of their properties are clearly not being reconditioned at former rates (most hotel rooms in LV are redone every 18 months or so). Bally's and the Flamingo are looking a bit ratty these days. And, oh yeah, the air quality in the Rio has gone from good to horrendous -- I was told it's because cleaning of filters and vents must have been cut drastically.

Anyway, that's enough for now.

[Alan Mendelson]

Another way to say that is, "If you have won at a negative expectation game, you're a damned fool to sit down at the same negative expectation game and expect to win."

Exactly -- I DON'T EXPECT TO WIN which is why using loss limits and win goals gives me a tool to pocket wins when they come and to keep from going broke chasing losses.

Now, how does that compare to you, redietz who admits to a 3% loss rate even though you claim to be playing a positive expectation game? If you keep losing 3% each time you play, eventually you'll be broke.

[redietz]

First of all, the odds against me losing my bankroll playing positive EV 25-cent video poker are millions, maybe tens of millions, to one. So I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over that. Actually, the odds may be higher than that, but I'm not going to bother Arci or my math buddies to run the numbers because it's silly.

I'm not sure why you would point out that losing 3% a session would eventually get you broke. That 3% short-term loss estimate for me means no four deuces, no royal, and on the low side of royals-with-deuces. I'm not sure what your point was with this -- if I play a rigged machine with no royals and no four deuces, I'll go broke? I think I'd notice no four deuces eventually. So are you saying I should watch out for rigged machines? I thought you believed all machines are random?

Ohhhh, wait a moment. You said I "claimed a 3% loss rate." I should have noticed you didn't use a quote because I didn't say that. What I said was that I expect a 3% loss rate short-term. I play short sessions, so the odds are against me getting a royal or four deuces any given session. So short-term, I expect to lose 3%. Long-term, I expect to win or I wouldn't be playing -- remember? I'm an advantage player. I'm ahead lifetime.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well I certainly hope you won't lose your bankroll playing 25-cent video poker. But why would a smart guy like you keep playing while losing 3% of your budgeted amount? I think you need some win goals and loss limits.

Yes, I didn't exactly quote you directly, but I don't have a crystal ball, and if you're losing 3% in the short term I can't see the future when you will be hitting quad deuces and royals.

[redietz]

Sounds to me like you think the machines might be rigged. You should take that up with Caesars and the Gaming Commission.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sounds to me like you think the machines might be rigged. You should take that up with Caesars and the Gaming Commission.

Actually, if you think that overtime your positive expectation game will in fact meet your positive expectation goals then you might be thinking the games are rigged. I think the machines are random and there is no guarantee you will ever hit a royal, or hit quad deuces, or that you will hit them within a reasonable amount of time to give you a rate of return equal to the theoretical return on the machine/game. I also don't think that over time a machine will actually have the theoretical return it is supposed to have and I also don't think that if you play a machine with a 100.17% that over time you will have 100.17% of the money you put into the slot.

Now to believe that a positive return machine will give you a positive return must have you thinking that the machines have some sort of long term design to them. Is that rigged? Perhaps you should discuss that with the gaming regulators? They might tell you something like this: while a machine/game might have a theoretical expected return there is no guarantee you will see that expected return.

Now, do you expect to see that theoretical return? If you do, good luck to you, and I hope you will start betting dollars and higher armed with such assurance.

[regnis]

Alan-that is really the difference. You and I don't believe that any particular player, whether today or over time, has an actual result equal to, or even close to, the expected return. And my history definitely is consistent with that. Red and arci believe that they will hit the expected return over time and therefore can grind out that small win. Again, I never seem to end that way. I either hit a big quad and leave with a profit, or get murdered and am thankful I have a loss limit. I never break even or leave -1%. So go back to an old thread where Rob said it's all luck, and that is still, to me, the undeniable truth.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regnis you and I agree, but need I remind you (or myself) that Arc has shown us the mathematical proof over and over again and his 25-cent sock puppet agrees?

(Sorry, couldn't resist the snarky comment. Snarky is my new word.)

[redietz]

Well, thus far in my life, my actual return has matched theoretical almost exactly. I take it yours has as well, Alan?

I really do need to step up to them thar dollar machines to experience "real gambling." But we boys from the South fear "real gambling," you know, because paper money is so rare down here.

I guess I need to add, since Alan is being purposefully forgetful or dense (which is no service to readers), that dollar machines with positive return in Las Vegas are exceedingly rare. The opportunities rarely exist unless one has top tier cashback or access to rebates, thus I would not be playing dollar machines because I do not play enough video poker to qualify for top tier cashback. I'm not sure why Alan fails to mention this in regards to my not playing dollar machines, so I'll ask him. Alan, why do you not mention this?