Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[regnis]

A rarity for me--unfortunately for only 50 cents. Went $100 over my loss limit and got rewarded. The original card that was discarded was also a diamond. So I threw away the 3-way flush (proper play) and got lucky.

[arcimede$]

Singer will be angry you didn't stop at your loss limit.

Congrats on the nice win .... and demonstrating the fallacy of loss limits.

[regnis]

Wish I could claim I was smart---but the strategy was I needed to kill another half hour before a meeting. It was either blow another hundred or eat a bad lunch in the diamond lounge. That's why I went down to 50 cents to make the hundred last. My loss limit was $600 and this would have been $700.

[Alan Mendelson]

Congratulations regnis. No player's card? You will be accused of shooting a photo of someone else's win. (LOL)

What was the diamond flush card that you discarded to hit the royal?

[regnis]

I don't remember what the discard was, but it was lower like a 7. Not a straight flush.

I actually pulled the card before the attendant came because I wasn't using my card. A friend wants to reach 7 stars so I use his card since I am diamond and not going to be anywhere near 7 stars myself. Yes--I don't get points on my card but he uses his for all the meals so I figure I'm close enough to even in the long run.

Arci--I know you say that partially as a dig to Singer and Alan but isn't my loss limit totally arbitrary anyway?? I had a meeting and wanted to drive between traffic so I had 2 hours to kill and decided $600 was all I would allow myself to lose (my meeting being worth $1,000). So after losing 600 I said--another 100 won't kill me. It's all just a question of hitting the button at the right time--at least for me.

[Alan Mendelson]

The purpose of a loss limit is so that you don't go thru your entire bankroll... and you have money to enjoy another trip at a future day. The loss limit by itself will not help you win. Loss Limit is just another name for sticking to your budget. Going over your budgeted amount by $100 isn't going to kill you, is it?

[arcimede$]

Arci--I know you say that partially as a dig to Singer and Alan but isn't my loss limit totally arbitrary anyway?? I had a meeting and wanted to drive between traffic so I had 2 hours to kill and decided $600 was all I would allow myself to lose (my meeting being worth $1,000). So after losing 600 I said--another 100 won't kill me. It's all just a question of hitting the button at the right time--at least for me.

Yup, it's really is random, the big wins and losing streaks can happen at any time.

I have no problem with loss limits on negative games. In fact, I use one myself. I stop right before I play the first hand.

[arcimede$]

The purpose of a loss limit is so that you don't go thru your entire bankroll... and you have money to enjoy another trip at a future day. The loss limit by itself will not help you win. Loss Limit is just another name for sticking to your budget. Going over your budgeted amount by $100 isn't going to kill you, is it?

I take a fixed amount of money to the casino and will leave if I lose it. So, in a sense I always have a loss limit myself. We all do to a certain degree. However, my problem is when people start to claim that win goals and loss limits will improve their bottom line on positive machines.

[Count Room]

Yup, it's really is random, the big wins and losing streaks can happen at any time.

I have no problem with loss limits on negative games. In fact, I use one myself. I stop right before I play the first hand.

If one elects to play 99% machines rather than 101% machines, doesn't this afford the good old American freedom of opportunity to press the button at a 2.02% better rate than the average person in order to retain the 1% edge?

[Alan Mendelson]

my problem is when people start to claim that win goals and loss limits will improve their bottom line on positive machines.

Actually this is an apples and oranges disagreement.

Whether or not you have win goals and loss limits has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing a positive expectation or negative expectation machine.

Win goals allow you to give yourself a target when to pick yourself up and leave. I personally use a rising stop loss when I am playing and I am ahead, so I don't have a fixed win goal. I would use a rising stop loss even when playing a positive machine. All you are doing with a rising stop loss (when you have a profit) is saying "I've won and I am going to take this much profit home while using the excess profit to try to win more." How can you argue with that? You are locking in a profit to take home, while using some additional profit when things might be going your way and you could win more.

Loss limits only prevent you from losing it all too quickly, and maybe going overboard, or ruining plans for a future visit. Having loss limits even makes sense on a positive machine because playing a positive machine does not guarantee a win. If you have a fixed amount of money that you take to the casino you indeed do have a loss limit. What you take is your loss limit.

I think the confusion about having win goals and loss limits to improve your bottom line comes from the claim or belief that you will always be ahead at some point in every session you play and if you cash out at that point you will always be a winner. This is what Rob says and why he uses a system of moving up in denomination and why he uses special plays.

I think you can get lucky in this way, and my experience has been that I have been up by at least one bet in about 9 out of 10 sessions I've played. But I can't imagine quitting with only a one bet profit unless I was playing something crazy like a $500/coin video poker machine -- and in that case being up one bet would be a week's salary.

[arcimede$]

Actually this is an apples and oranges disagreement.

Probably ... real math = apples ... Alan math = oranges

Whether or not you have win goals and loss limits has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing a positive expectation or negative expectation machine.

Only using Alan math.

Win goals allow you to give yourself a target when to pick yourself up and leave. I personally use a rising stop loss when I am playing and I am ahead, so I don't have a fixed win goal. I would use a rising stop loss even when playing a positive machine. All you are doing with a rising stop loss (when you have a profit) is saying "I've won and I am going to take this much profit home while using the excess profit to try to win more." How can you argue with that? You are locking in a profit to take home, while using some additional profit when things might be going your way and you could win more.

You could also have won more right after you reach your loss limit and decided to quit. Your decision to quit doesn't change your long term expectation and may actually cost you money. No one is arguing with a person who decides to quit for any reason. The only objection is if you claim that decision will lead to winning more money than if you hadn't quit.

Loss limits only prevent you from losing it all too quickly, and maybe going overboard, or ruining plans for a future visit. Having loss limits even makes sense on a positive machine because playing a positive machine does not guarantee a win. If you have a fixed amount of money that you take to the casino you indeed do have a loss limit. What you take is your loss limit.

If you are worried about losing too much money too quickly you are probably playing at too high a denomination for your bankroll.

I take enough money to get me through 95% of the time for my planned play.

I think the confusion about having win goals and loss limits to improve your bottom line comes from the claim or belief that you will always be ahead at some point in every session you play and if you cash out at that point you will always be a winner. This is what Rob says and why he uses a system of moving up in denomination and why he uses special plays.

I think you can get lucky in this way, and my experience has been that I have been up by at least one bet in about 9 out of 10 sessions I've played. But I can't imagine quitting with only a one bet profit unless I was playing something crazy like a $500/coin video poker machine -- and in that case being up one bet would be a week's salary.

That is about what I showed you previously with my simulations. You could win 95% of the sessions with a one bet win goal and a large loss limit. However, it doesn't change the bottom line. Over time you still approach the mathematical expectation.

[Alan Mendelson]

Over time you still approach the mathematical expectation.

Do you realize what's wrong with this thinking? I don't want to "approach" the mathematical expectation. I want to do BETTER than the expectation.
Why would I ever want to pump thru thousands of dollars into a VP game for an edge of one-tenth of one percent over time -- what a waste of time and resources.

If a win goal allows you to leave the game with more than a 1% gain YOU HAVE BEATEN THE MATH ON ANY VIDEO POKER GAME because there is no video poker game that pays more than 101%.

[Quad AAAA's]

It appears that Alan and Rob are two masters at the game. Congrats boys! It's nice when the cards fall your way. Royals, Straight Flushes, Quads and the Full House. Life is good when you're able to throw $10-$25 dollars a bet. Keep up the great image! I know I'm enjoying the show!

[Alan Mendelson]

It's not about me and Rob. It's about normal people and what they do.

People go into casinos all the time and hit a winner and push the cash out button and leave. What is wrong with that?

The math guys seem to think there is something wrong with that, especially when they are playing a positive expectation game. They seem to think that sitting at a positive expectation game is a license to print money. Has anyone been printing money from a video poker machine lately?

[Dan Druff]

It's not about me and Rob. It's about normal people and what they do.

People go into casinos all the time and hit a winner and push the cash out button and leave. What is wrong with that?

The math guys seem to think there is something wrong with that, especially when they are playing a positive expectation game. They seem to think that sitting at a positive expectation game is a license to print money. Has anyone been printing money from a video poker machine lately?

How many times do we have to keep repeating this?

Alan, quitting means NOTHING unless you are quitting for good.

If you are a regular player and keep coming back to play more, it's all one long session. The fact that a week or two passes between hands means nothing. You haven't beaten the odds when you cash out ahead, unless you cash out permanently ahead and quit forever. Otherwise your results are a mixture of below expectation (big losses), expectation (slight losses), and above expectations (wins).

You and Rob are obsessing over this "session" nonsense, when in reality it means nothing.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan I am not talking about QUITTING. I am talking about cashing out with a profit.

As I've said here: I am probably ahead at some point in 9 out of 10 sessions. And I don't measure sessions by minutes. I mean a day or a trip.

Walking away with a small profit after multiple sessions is not only very possible but it is done all the time. Sure, you might miss the next hand which could be a royal, but the next hand might also be a loser as might the hand after that, and the next hand after that as well.

What is absurd is saying don't quit with a profit because you are playing a positive expectation game. That is not rational behavior.

Telling me that you quit playing at a positive expectation game only because youre too tired or have to eat or need to piss is insane.

[redietz]

Allow me to borrow some attitude and terminology from our dear friend, Rob, in an effort to help Alan grasp his mathematical shortcomings. Playing positive expectation video poker is a lot like marriage, which is theoretically a positive expectation behavior. But when the road gets rocky and Divorce #1 happens, you can walk away knowing that only half of your shared property TO THAT POINT goes to your inferior half. By stop loss-ing your relationship, you seem to be protecting your future income and happiness, not to mention the occasional house or RV. But this only works IF YOU DO NOT REMARRY! As soon as you do that, you start another session, and it becomes evident -- after two or three marriages bite the dust -- that you've actually been playing a negative expectation game and IT'S ALL ONE UNENDING SESSION.

At least that's how my one friend (also a Californian, formerly) described his series of marriages.

I hope this has been helpful....

[Alan Mendelson]

So a question for Dan, and for Arc and for redietz: how much profit do you mathematical devotees have this year playing video poker?

Is there anyone on this forum with a profit playing video poker so far for the year 2014 ??

[Dan Druff]

So a question for Dan, and for Arc and for redietz: how much profit do you mathematical devotees have this year playing video poker?

Is there anyone on this forum with a profit playing video poker so far for the year 2014 ??

Yes, because I've only run freeplay this year.

But nobody is arguing that the "math plays" result in a profit. They don't, because every since CET machine is -EV.

I'm saying that the math plays result in a lesser loss.

I'm saying that your session-dependent results are meaningless.

I will at least praise you for sticking primarily to Aces and Faces, which is the right move at Rincon. It's just amazing how you are not seeing how important the math is here.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm saying that the math plays result in a lesser loss.

How can you prove this? How do you know this? Is it based on your personal experience?

I'm saying that your session-dependent results are meaningless.

Meaningless? Is walking out with a profit meaningless?

It's just amazing how you are not seeing how important the math is here.

The math is all important. I always play the best available pay tables for the games I am playing and leaving with a profit sure beats leaving with a loss.