Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Alan Mendelson]

I would ask why you think that probability or odds are a definitive predictor of ones results. No one has claimed that the math is wrong. But as said 100 times in this forum, if you are lucky enough to be ahead of the math, it is good to take your winnings.

If the math is written in stone then you believe the math will catch up with you so you really better quit and run.

This is an excellent post. Thank you.

[Alan Mendelson]

It makes no difference over time.

This appears to be the problem point.

I will argue that if you manage to cash out more wins than losses it will make a difference over time.

[redietz]

Regnis is correct in that if the math will catch up with you, you "really better quit and run." The salient point is that this is effective only if you quit permanently.

STOPPING PLAY AFTER SOME TIME POINT OF YOUR CHOOSING, BUT THEN PLAYING AGAIN LATER, ISN'T REALLY QUITTING. Why is this so difficult to grasp (for some)?

This idea that a person can somehow control random events by stopping and starting again at points and time of one's choosing is fascinating. It's curiously Western, in a way, in that it emphasizes some kind of work shifts. The people doing this are perceiving events as subject to manipulation based on an obsessive tracking of current financial status and by breaking days/weeks/months into allegedly discrete segments based on personal preference. It's a kind of magical thinking.

This is faux control, which in a way could be considered fodder for the DSM-IV. People are trying to say that by measuring the current resource amount they have at their disposal, they can control outcomes of random events. It has obsessive elements, in that one is focused on short-term fluctuations in those resource amounts. It has megalomaniac elements in that one actually believes one can control outcomes over time by monitoring these things. It has narcissistic elements in that one is "one of the few" who has figured this out and can execute it.

I have asked this before, but -- really -- is Alan saying that if everyone did as he suggests, it would make a difference over time? Really? Is that what's being suggested here? And if the world were filled with a billion Alans playing video poker, all playing as he prescribes, would the casinos suddenly be in trouble? When framed that way, the argument he's making seems sillier.

Rob has already said on these pages that if everyone played as he does, the casinos would have to stop offering video poker. Alan seems to be saying the same thing. So Alan, if we were all playing as you do, do you really think it will make a difference over time to the casinos? To the players?

[quahaug]

It would make a difference if all players were as lucky as Rob and to some extent Alan claim to be.

[arcimede$]

This appears to be the problem point.

I will argue that if you manage to cash out more wins than losses it will make a difference over time.

Of course, the problem is you can't force the machines to produce that scenario. The machines are random.

For your fantasy to occur you need to play a game at a higher return. That is, you will have a higher frequency of winning hands than a random distribution. How do you make that happen? Why will machines decide to provide you with better hands than someone else? Do you even understand the concept of a random distribution?

BTW, this discussion can only go one way. Eventually Alan will claim the machines are not really random since that is the only possible situation where his strategy works. What is required are programmed hot and cold cycles. You then milk the hot cycles and quickly quit during a cold cycle. Of course, there is no need to go home at all. All you would need to do is move to a different machine.

Unless. of course, it is not the machines that have the hot/cold cycles, but the person themselves. LOL.

[Alan Mendelson]

I realize what the problem is now, and why the "math guys" object so vehemently to the idea of being able to walk away with a profit, and why they maintain you must quit permanently to be able to quit when ahead. For example, this statement from our friend redietz:

Regnis is correct in that if the math will catch up with you, you "really better quit and run." The salient point is that this is effective only if you quit permanently.

STOPPING PLAY AFTER SOME TIME POINT OF YOUR CHOOSING, BUT THEN PLAYING AGAIN LATER, ISN'T REALLY QUITTING. Why is this so difficult to grasp (for some)?

So I think we need a different phrase here to explain the strategy of cashing out profits. Let me put it a different way and see if you "math guys" will agree with this statement:

Even if you don't quit permanently, you can have a profit each time you play OR you can have a profit in enough sessions to offset the times you play when you lose.

Can you accept that statement? Because really that is what we are talking about. We are talking about money management and based on our experience (and I am sure Arc and redietz have also experienced this) we know that there are many times when we play that we have a profit and had we cashed out at that particular point we could have built up a bankroll of profits. What makes it possible, of course, is luck. The same luck that makes people who play positive expectation machines also win.

So... Arc and redietz and Dan Druff and anyone who wants to comment, can you accept this:

Even if you don't quit permanently, you can have a profit each time you play OR you can have a profit in enough sessions to offset the times you play when you lose.

[Alan Mendelson]

It would make a difference if all players were as lucky as Rob and to some extent Alan claim to be.

Of course it all comes down to luck and to money management. It comes down to knowing when to "hit and run."

When I did my overnighter in Vegas I chose to leave when I had combined profits from VP and craps of about $4500. I could have chosen to stay and kept playing and might have lost it all. Yes, I might have won more but why risk it is what I figured. And John sitting next to me at the VP machine (who by the way is a math guy -- and he will tell you) urged me to take the profits and run. I raised my stop loss after hitting the quad aces and got up from the machine.

That was simply a combination of luck and money management: I got lucky with quad aces and my money management said take the money and leave. And that was the same thing I did two weeks earlier when I was at Caesars for a weekend, but that time my profit was only about $1200.

Now Arc asks if I believe the machines are random:

Of course, the problem is you can't force the machines to produce that scenario. The machines are random.

For your fantasy to occur you need to play a game at a higher return. That is, you will have a higher frequency of winning hands than a random distribution. How do you make that happen? Why will machines decide to provide you with better hands than someone else? Do you even understand the concept of a random distribution?

BTW, this discussion can only go one way. Eventually Alan will claim the machines are not really random since that is the only possible situation where his strategy works. What is required are programmed hot and cold cycles. You then milk the hot cycles and quickly quit during a cold cycle. Of course, there is no need to go home at all. All you would need to do is move to a different machine.

Unless. of course, it is not the machines that have the hot/cold cycles, but the person themselves. LOL.

Arc, of course I believe the machines are random. And because they are random you will have winners. And you have to know that wins are random events and you have to know that they will not continue -- so you cash out when those random wins come. That's what money management is all about.

[arcimede$]

Now Arc asks if I believe the machines are random:

Arc, of course I believe the machines are random. And because they are random you will have winners. And you have to know that wins are random events and you have to know that they will not continue -- so you cash out when those random wins come. That's what money management is all about.

Alan, that is fine but over time that will not make you a winner. Over time random means a specific distribution of hands. That distribution on negative games results in a net loss.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, that is fine but over time that will not make you a winner. Over time random means a specific distribution of hands. That distribution on negative games results in a net loss.

Sorry. You are convinced that playing a negative expectation game means you cannot have a profit. You can have a profit even on negative expectation games and you can have more profitable sessions than losing sessions, and you can have fewer profitable sessions but with profits that will surpass the losses on the losing sessions. It all comes down to luck and money management.

Because a game has a negative expectation does not mean you cannot walk away with a profit. And you can do it multiple times if you manage your money wisely.

[arcimede$]

Sorry. You are convinced that playing a negative expectation game means you cannot have a profit. You can have a profit even on negative expectation games and you can have more profitable sessions than losing sessions, and you can have fewer profitable sessions but with profits that will surpass the losses on the losing sessions. It all comes down to luck and money management.

Because a game has a negative expectation does not mean you cannot walk away with a profit. And you can do it multiple times if you manage your money wisely.

It also doesn't mean you will walk away with a profit nor that the times you do will lead to more profits than the times you end up with losses. Yes, anyone can get lucky and it has NOTHING to do with when you cash out unless you never play again. There is no difference, none, zero, nada, zippo, zilch between playing another hand today and coming back another day to play it.

I notice you didn't respond to the hot/cold cycles thought. What you are saying is you will play machines that are hot more often than you play them when they are cold. I suspect you don't want to admit this because you realize that puts you into the same silly group as Singer. Part of you realizes your claims are silly.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think our positions are well stated. At least mine is.

But a different question Arc: do you believe a positive pay table guarantees you will win?

[redietz]

You guys seem to have ignored my post. I'll ask again, Alan. If everyone played as you suggest, what effect would that have on the machines? On the casinos? On the people playing?

And arci has answered the question above a half dozen times in clear and careful language. Of course it doesn't guarantee you'll win, because "guarantee" suggests 100%. But if you play enough hands on a positive expectation machine, the "working man's" definition of "guarantee" would come into play. You'd have a 99.99% chance of winning. That's good enough for most people native to this reality. Now the flip side, the question of "Does playing a negative machine guarantee you'll lose?" No, it doesn't. But if your chances of losing are also 99.99%, most people would say it's not a good idea to proceed as if you think you'll win. All the stop losses and win goals in the world don't affect the probability of winning or losing given a certain number of hands played.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regarding your question: does everyone get lucky? I went about 180,000 hands without a royal in one year. But this year I've had eight royals. The flip side is managing and controlling your losses. I have no idea what would happen if everyone got lucky or if everyone controlled their losses.

Of course a positive game doesn't mean you'll win and playing a negative game doesn't mean you'll lose.

[dannyj]

That's right. Alan has the ability, by stopping his play at various points, to outperform probability. He's blessed by God.

And Rob, your will allows you to outperform what the math predicts -- over and over again. You are also blessed by God.

So the only question is, should we join The Church of Alan or The Church of Rob? I humbly suggest that Alan gets more women, but Rob has more schlong. So it's a tough call. Personally, I'd like more women, but I'd really like a bigger schlong. And as I get older, I'm leaning more to schlong. Plus, if I ever decide to can the heterosexual bit, schlong would be more valuable.

You kill me Red. Too funny!

[Alan Mendelson]

I missed the original post by redietz who was quoted as saying:

"That's right. Alan has the ability, by stopping his play at various points, to outperform probability. He's blessed by God. And Rob, your will allows you to outperform what the math predicts -- over and over again. You are also blessed by God."

Unfortunately you also confused the math with money management. We aren't dismissing math or the probability over the long term. We are managing our money/play more wisely by limiting losses and cashing out winners. Don't you get it yet? Obviously, you don't because you say it outperforms probability and such.

No. If we kept playing the probability would catch up with us. But we don't keep playing when we hit winners.

As I said before: if I walk up to a 7/5 Bonus machine and hit two pair on the first play and cash out I have a return of 200%. Do you call that outperforming probability or do you call that money management? I call it money management.

You guys are too wrapped up in applying everything to your math probabilities. Open up your mind and consider a different way to look at casino gambling. I know you can do it if you try.

And where is that original quote???

[redietz]

"Money management" is not a special tool, a magic wand, a yellow brick road (pick one) that allows one to fix, make disappear, or travel safely around probability. Where did anyone ever get that idea?

I mean, think about what you're saying. You have a strategy, called "money management," that you are claiming somehow neutralizes or circumvents probability. Your strategy varies from day to day, from session to session, from situation to situation, yet somehow you have discovered a fluid, changing way to prevent negative return machines from gobbling your money.

I find it really, really hard to buy into the idea that anyone truly believes this. If you do, just say so clearly and distinctly. "I have discovered a strategy that circumvents probability. It's called money management."

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz after reading what you wrote above all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.

This money management is not a strategy. It is not any kind of new math or any way to challenge any probabilities.

I give up trying to explain it. All I am doing, I guess, is taking profits when they come and avoid losses. If you don't like it, tough noogies.

[Quad AAAA's]

I give up trying to explain it. All I am doing, I guess, is taking profits when they come and avoid losses. If you don't like it, tough noogies.

Now that is funny! Tough noogies? Plain and simply put if you have a sizable profit why not keep it? In the long run you will lose whatever amount you have won. You cannot sustain the bank roll by playing against a machine. Whatever strategies you make up..........the machine always wins unless you hit and run with a profit margin. Winners walk away and losers continue to play. I believe this applies to the game of video poker and I feel the same about the game of craps. Good luck to all of you people who have created nothing more than a problem of thought. Why tax your brains? I'm with Alan. "After all.....money won is better than money earned."

[Alan Mendelson]

Winners walk away and losers continue to play.

I like that.

Of course, what is very frustrating is that the math guys can't guarantee a profit playing a positive expectation game, so how could they possibly criticize anyone using a win goal, or stop loss way of playing? It makes no sense. If they could guarantee a profit by playing a positive pay table -- with all of their "probabilities talk" -- then I could understand their criticism of walking away "prematurely." As Arc says -- when you walk away with a small profit you might have missed walking away with a bigger profit. But you can't guarantee a bigger profit, can you? You can't guarantee any profit -- and isn't that the truth?

As I've said many times (in one way or another) you can't take math theory, probabilities, or a positive pay table to the bank or use it to pay for your groceries, rent, car payment, etc.

[quahaug]

"As I've said many times (in one way or another) you can't take math theory, probabilities, or a positive pay table to the bank or use it to pay for your groceries, rent, car payment, etc." If you think this way then why do you play any strategy at all? Why don't you just discard any non winning dealt hand and leave it up to the rng?