Changing Games or Denominations on 1 Machine

[arcimede$]

But a bigger question -- and one which Rob raised -- is can you even be a winner at a positive expectation game because no one is at the machine long enough to experience that "positive return" unless they do have luck?

All time (number of hands) does is narrow the possible range of results. It says nothing about where one might be in that range. That you attribute such a position to Singer should tell you something. This is basic stat 101. Anyone who would spend the time to understand the math would point out that anyone making such a claim is either a con man or a dufus. Take your pick.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks, Arc. Statistics and math are wonderful things... except when your own money is on the line. Then the theory and the math may not "work" when they're supposed to. What Rob does is inject a lot of reality into the wonderful theory of gambling. That reality can help you from going broke when the theory isn't working out the way you want it to be. I wouldn't be too critical of Rob's "reality check." There are a lot of people who play video poker by the book and lose. I guess you might say they weren't in that seat during the possible narrow range of positive results. And I guess that's what built the casino companies.

[arcimede$]

Thanks, Arc. Statistics and math are wonderful things... except when your own money is on the line. Then the theory and the math may not "work" when they're supposed to. What Rob does is inject a lot of reality into the wonderful theory of gambling. That reality can help you from going broke when the theory isn't working out the way you want it to be. I wouldn't be too critical of Rob's "reality check." There are a lot of people who play video poker by the book and lose. I guess you might say they weren't in that seat during the possible narrow range of positive results. And I guess that's what built the casino companies.

Sorry to disappoint you Alan, but the math always works. I guess you'll never accept that fact. Instead you'll repeat silly nonsense. You seem to think that the math says you're going to win. It doesn't. The range of results most often contains both winning and losing. The problem we all must deal with is the math is always working no matter what you do. The only way to avoid it is not to play. Like it or not, that is reality.

You can give yourself a better chance on winning or not. Those is the only real choices you have.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry to disappoint you Alan, but the math always works. I guess you'll never accept that fact. Instead you'll repeat silly nonsense. You seem to think that the math says you're going to win. It doesn't. The range of results most often contains both winning and losing. The problem we all must deal with is the math is always working no matter what you do. The only way to avoid it is not to play. Like it or not, that is reality.

You can give yourself a better chance on winning or not. Those is the only real choices you have.

Wow, Arc. This is surprising coming from you. But I think we are in agreement here. The math cannot guarantee a win but it can help you to win.

The funny thing is Rob says his system can't guarantee a win either, but he says his system can also help you to win.

Perhaps it's time for some mutual respect?

[arcimede$]

Wow, Arc. This is surprising coming from you. But I think we are in agreement here. The math cannot guarantee a win but it can help you to win.

The funny thing is Rob says his system can't guarantee a win either, but he says his system can also help you to win.

Perhaps it's time for some mutual respect?

Except for one little problem. Singer is lying. His system cannot help anyone win. It simply trades off more session wins for a few big losses. The net result is the same. You will end up within a range based on the math.

BTW, I don't think anyone has ever said the math will guarantee winning. However, using the math a person can give themselves a high probability of winning. That's why knowledgeable players win almost every year. Of course, not everyone has access to those kinds of opportunities. That doesn't mean players can't give themselves a better chance at success. That is what the math provides.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think Rob should comment about what you wrote, but I look at Rob's system as a "total system" including his win goal system which I think can create many more smaller wins. If you used his 5% figure ($2500 win on $53,000 bankroll) I don't think there has ever been a time I haven't been up by 5% at some point-- but I didn't have the discipline to quit.

You of course make a big deal of his "special plays" and while the "math" shows they put you at a disadvantage, Rob doesn't dispute that math either. Yet, when they "connect' you can perhaps reach that win goal and leave.

Looking at Rob's system purely by the numbers, the numbers do not show a winning strategy. But Rob's system is also a psychology and philosophy about win goals and loss limits, and you have to account for that as well.

I think I have adopted the best of Rob's system -- his win goal and loss limit, with only a few of his special plays. And I emphasize this: only a few.

I think every player should pick and choose strategies and philosophies from various "coaches" that fit them the best.

[slingshot]

I think Rob should comment about what you wrote, but I look at Rob's system as a "total system" including his win goal system which I think can create many more smaller wins. If you used his 5% figure ($2500 win on $53,000 bankroll) I don't think there has ever been a time I haven't been up by 5% at some point-- but I didn't have the discipline to quit.

You of course make a big deal of his "special plays" and while the "math" shows they put you at a disadvantage, Rob doesn't dispute that math either. Yet, when they "connect' you can perhaps reach that win goal and leave.

Looking at Rob's system purely by the numbers, the numbers do not show a winning strategy. But Rob's system is also a psychology and philosophy about win goals and loss limits, and you have to account for that as well.

I think I have adopted the best of Rob's system -- his win goal and loss limit, with only a few of his special plays. And I emphasize this: only a few.

I think every player should pick and choose strategies and philosophies from various "coaches" that fit them the best.

That's what I did. Just as the math doesn't always correctly pick the "correct" winning hand, so it doesn't guarantee the special plays won't hit. I've been fortunate enough to win on most of the special plays Rob suggests.My favorite was similar to the one in his book. I kept getting junk even drawing at high cards. One hand came up with two high cards, and the suited cards with them were too small to reach a straight flush, so I swept them and hit 4 A's w/kicker. There are many others, but I say keep your math as far as I'm concerned-I'm using the computer on my shoulders.

[Alan Mendelson]

One hand came up with two high cards, and the suited cards with them were too small to reach a straight flush, so I swept them and hit 4 A's w/kicker.

Can you give the specifics of that hand? And the game you were playing? Very curious... thanks.

[slingshot]

Can you give the specifics of that hand? And the game you were playing? Very curious... thanks.

I was playing ddbp at quarters and was about 150 credits into the game after playing 100 credits on bp. It was very disgusting with only two pairs and an occasional trips on Razgus materializing. Finally I said, "what the heck" and I believe a Q and a J came up(the best two cards according to the math) of different suits and the matching suited cards were like a 5 and a 2. Really, more out of disgust I swept them and up came the Aces/w/kicker. I don't know if the rush that came afterwards was more from joy or surprise.