Now THERE'S the arci of days past. Stuck on how to reply, so say anything even if it makes no senseOriginally Posted by arcimede$
So.....how's everything at home??? You know why I'm asking (wink wink). C'mon, you can say it!
Now THERE'S the arci of days past. Stuck on how to reply, so say anything even if it makes no senseOriginally Posted by arcimede$
So.....how's everything at home??? You know why I'm asking (wink wink). C'mon, you can say it!
This part's really funny. Medication......pills? Them's fightin' words to arci. The only thing worse is mentioning KFC for Thanksgiving!Originally Posted by Vpnewbie
The real narcissism comes out when Singer gets frustrated. LOL.
This place is getting worse than a daycare room overrun with snot nosed preschoolers fighting over their toys.
Amen. They just can't let it go can they???? I guess they're trying to figure out who has the biggest penis.
That would be meOriginally Posted by VpnewbieAmen. They just can't let it go can they???? I guess they're trying to figure out who has the biggest penis.
Could you just imagine it being a nerd who 's best memories of high school were the times when the cool guys pulled his pants down and threw him into*the girl's gym!?
Rob's schlong is never wrong.
One of the problems here is that something called "money management" is brought into play as a magic wand to circumvent probabilities. The problem is that "money management" is also part of "the math." There is no way to extract money management from mathematical formulas and have it stand alone as a strategy. It can always be inserted via simulations into every possible situation. When this is done, it does not affect the probabilities or the returns. We have a semantic issue here of attempting to call something that is -- at its core and in its entirety -- subsumed by "the math," and present it as somehow outside of "the math."
Hey lets get a VPSO going on. Kind of like a chili cook off! Lets see the likes of all these guys and their strategies in action. Hey I'm down! I might even bring the chili! Photographs are allowed so bring your camera as well. All we need now is a time and place. Wow this is like the who's who of Video Poker. I'm thinking a reality TV program might be a possibility. Who' down? Lets do this! Choose a casino in Vegas or California. Maybe a CET property because all you players probably sport a 7 Stars card and well, the rooms are free! VPSO = Video Poker Stand Off.
Singer will hit quad A's with a kicker and be gone in an hour. The rest have to play to infinity. I'll Tivo it and fast forward if I happen to still be here at infinity.
Make it a slightly positive game so that after 100 years or so they can catch Singer and prove he should have kept playing.
I just don't understand-- how does money management circumvent probablilities? When I have a profit of 100 credits showing what is so wrong about hitting the cash out button? All I am saying is "I am happy with this profit -- I don't want to risk losing it -- I am going home." How the heck does that circumvent probabilities?Originally Posted by redietz
Let me ask the question a different way: What the fuck are you talking about?
I believe the argument has gotten down to: "well I can't convince these guys that cashing out with profits will never equate to making money over time, so I'll just muddle it up with money management having something to do with the probabilities and/or the math"...or whatever that was. One glaring problem: Red and all the others who claim that when they play apvp, the only quit when the sandman taps them on the shoulder--none of these guys have ever tried or experienced anything other than sitting for hours like foolish zombies who play right thru winners and jackpots. That's why taking profits escapes them, and why they believe if you have a big winner like my $16k and even larger profit a few days ago, all it means is the math MUST return to snatch it all back from me. It's as dumb an argument as there ever was, they know it, but it's all they have.
Regnis, that was a great post.
Hey Rob was just wondering your strategy used for this. Was it 100-200-300-400 credits at each denomination on BP or did you use something else? And if you used it for a 3 level 25c to 1.00 what credits did you use there? Just found it interesting and may be something I may want to try. Oh and Congrats on your nice hit.
I too would be interested in Rob's approach.
I understand the more you play the more the game should align with the EV, so for someone like myself who only goes to Vegas maybe once a year if that, would be interested if I should adjust my play to go for big wins rather than the smaller ones.
What I'm talking about is that one can insert any money management rules one likes into playing strategy simulations and they do not affect the returns. Money management is math. It's not something outside of math. It's not an alien kind of math. It can be plugged into any situation and analyzed.
Rob, do the readers a favor and leave me out of your psycho-analysis of vp players. I hate to call you a liar in public, but none of the attributions you assign to vp players in the above paragraph apply to me, so I guess (since I'm an "AP") I have no choice but to baldly call you a liar. I don't think I ever played video poker for more than six hours in a stretch in my life.
I guess I need to state this clearly, then: Rob Argentino lied in the above post. I guess that makes him a liar. Rob has a nasty habit of assuming he knows more than he does about people and then lying to an audience about those people. It's irresponsible, and it makes the forum irresponsible.
Redietz you must differentiate between expected return and actual return. The expected return is never impacted by money management. The actual return is.
Do you agree and if not what is wrong with you? LOL
I'm not sure what you mean here, other than possibly you feel that quitting while ahead DURING A SESSION has somehow affected your return. That's speculative regarding the session in question because, as arci has explained on numerous occasions, you don't know what would have happened next. Since you are playing a negative game, however, the quitting while ahead -- provided it reduces your number of hands -- is a good thing. That's pretty clear-cut. Anything that reduces your number of hands played in a negative game is a good thing.
But, in the grand scheme of things, if quitting while ahead during a session just leads to more sessions and an equal or greater number of hands overall, no, the "money management," -- which is largely an illusion of control -- does not aid your return. That is pretty clear cut, also.
Allow me to state it simply:
When playing 8/5 Bonus no matter what you do the "expected return" will always be 99.2%.
If you sit down at an 8/5 Bonus machine and on the first play you hit two pair and cash out immediately your actual return on your 5 coin bet was 200%.
No one ever disputed the expected return. Your actual return will vary with how you play and luck and when you decide to cash out.
Again you say money management does not aid your return. You have to differentiate between expected or actual. Money management ALWAYS can aid your actual return.
Nonsense. You cannot know what your actual return would have been when you quit. Hence, there is no way that cashing out can "aid" your actual return. It might have reduced your actual return.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Once again, your statements are in direct contradiction to known mathematics. Every single PhD mathematician in the world will back this up. You've been presented with these facts over and over again and yet continue to spew this utter garbage. There is a word for people who deny known facts in order to maintain a specific belief system ... delusional.
Let me clue you in to reality:Originally Posted by arcimede$
If I insert a $100 bill into an 8/5 Bonus Game my expected return is approximately 99.2% for each and every time I push the button for a play.
But if after five plays I cash out $125 I will have an actual return of 125%.
I can't predict what my actual return will be before I start to play -- and that is true. But when I hit the cash out button I decide what my actual return is.
In this example, the actual return is 125%. I could also hit the cash out button when the credit meter reads $90 in which case the actual return was 90% which was less than the expected return.
Now -- where is my mathematics wrong?
The problem is you will twist and turn everything I say -- and everything Rob Singer says -- to try to discredit a very simple and smart way to play which is simply to quit when you're ahead. Yet, you yourself say there is nothing wrong with quitting when you are ahead. So what's your problem making a big fucking deal over such a simple plan when playing?
You amaze me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote