The Sisyphean Gambler

[Rob.Singer]

You missed the funny part Alan, where arci & his wife used to "double up on the betting" to make more money. I wonder why, with all that free "2.5% edge money" available to him, that he didn't just grab a bunch of streeters like Frank from that pool of "winning AP's" that arci always claims "is lurking on the streets of LV" and REALLY make some money during his dream years in town? Must be he had a lapse in judgement....kinda like how he's currently trying to talk himself out of the lies he's telling about the card readers in his last embarrassing post.

The part about Frank not betting with his own money went over his head. He doesn't like that being brought up since it doesn't fit his story-telling of "pros with edges". Obviously, for the past 15 years, Frank has known there's no worthwhile "edge" out there so he chose to take advantage of the idiots who pay people to hopefully get lucky on the big progressives. But you know what? They're all dumb amateurs compared to the guy stuck in Minnesota who apparently still sneaks out to the casinos alone these days. Why, arci is the only one who the Indians cater to by allowing him to beat them up with that "edge" while tracking his every move, and they've even removed the cameras so he can make believe he's beating the slot card system without them knowing anything about it! Only problem is, card pulling slows these AP's down so, and those darn winners that come up on one or two card holds....Gee, an AP can't even count on lying about the card-pulling trick anymore without getting taken out to the woodshed from ALL angles!

Finally, his dumbest statement: "I have an edge on every hand bet". This is the typical AP (and my most favorite of theirs BTW) BS point that I enjoyed making fun of in my Gaming Today column over the years, and I still get fantastic mileage out of it even today. These people thrive on phantom bucks--where you're supposedly making money on every hand....thus the reason for sitting like zombies for four or more house pounding feverishly away at the buttons as fast as possible while claiming near flawless play to make it seem all worthwhile (except for that pesky art of card-pulling of course, which tends to contradict everything about these geniuses ). Problem here is, Walgreens, CVS, or anywhere else won't take phantom bucks for batteries, beanie babies, bed pans or anything else, so if that RNG isn't cooperating with AP-theory then it's back to going home with a pocket full of excuses nearly all the time.

There's nothing difficult about all this. I've been catching AP's like arci lying and manufacturing stories like his for years now, which is why he doesn't like me and why Bob Dancer always avoids debating me in a public setting. And I've even told him he could sell all his vp-trinkets at it!

[arcimede$]

Very good, Arc. I'm glad you are the exception and good for you! I am glad there are winners out there. The rest of us who can't find the positive machines need something else-- and that's where I like Rob's money management and his win-goal strategy.

If I were a super human video poker player, playing on the super machines, I might do things in your super way. But alas I'm not. So I have to find other ways to enjoy my visit and lock up profits when I can. And I think a lot of players are like me and a lot of players will also quit when ahead.

It just strikes me funny that you feel quitting when ahead will not make a difference in a player's bottom line?

I remember this advice from my father -- fifty years ago -- when talking about the stock market. He said to me: no one ever went broke selling at a profit. And you know what? No one ever went broke quitting when ahead at a casino game.

Alan, while your quotes are true you ignore basic reality. Sometimes you never get ahead. That's the fact you keep ignoring and it destroys your entire argument. It must be nice to walk around with those rose-tinted glasses. It allows you to exist in a fantasy world that has no place in objective reality. When you decide to let logic and facts dictate your decision making process you will be able to move ahead. Until then you will be stuck in the rabbit hole.

[arcimede$]

I had to come back to this quote. It is of course the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. You have no edge if you lose your bet.

Your reasoning is what leads people to go broke. You must separate theory from reality. You fail to overlook the consequences of not quitting when ahead.

Once again you demonstrate how little you understand the basics. No one is claiming you will win a certain percentage of every bet. It's very telling that you don't even understand the simple logic at work here.

An analogy may help. A baseball player may bat .300 but no expects him to get 3/10 of a hit on every trip to the plate. However, the ability (edge) to maintain a .300 average is with the player on every at bat. If you were given a 4 to 1 odds on every hit you'd be a fool not to take it. This is exactly how the edge works in VP. You have the edge on every bet. Although the VP results will vary just like a batter's result vary, at the end on the season the edge/ability will lead to predictable results.

[arcimede$]

You missed the funny part Alan, where arci & his wife used to "double up on the betting" to make more money. I wonder why, with all that free "2.5% edge money" available to him, that he didn't just grab a bunch of streeters like Frank from that pool of "winning AP's" that arci always claims "is lurking on the streets of LV" and REALLY make some money during his dream years in town? Must be he had a lapse in judgement....kinda like how he's currently trying to talk himself out of the lies he's telling about the card readers in his last embarrassing post.

Uh, how many pros do you think would play a quarter game? Your first claim is basic nonsense.

It's really easy to destroy the claims by the dufus. The problem, of course, is that VP strategy is not that easy. In this particular game (OEJs), the stategy is probably the most difficult game strategy in existence. Now, add to that there were only 3 machines available for most of the time I was there. By training someone non-pro off the street it wouldn't take long before they might decide to take the risk on themselves and keep the entire profit. That would mean competing for seats (which happened enough as it was). No, this was a play that needed as little advertisement as possible.

Poor dufus. Every time he comments he demonstrates just how deep his ignorance goes.

The part about Frank not betting with his own money went over his head. He doesn't like that being brought up since it doesn't fit his story-telling of "pros with edges". Obviously, for the past 15 years, Frank has known there's no worthwhile "edge" out there so he chose to take advantage of the idiots who pay people to hopefully get lucky on the big progressives.

Now this has to about the most idiotic thing the dufus has claimed yet. Can anyone imagine paying someone for 15 years and losing money the whole time? Of course not, it's so silly as to raise the question of needing something even worse than dufus to describes Singer's competence. That he would believe anyone would accept this is even more ridiculous. Only a complete moron would read something like this and go ... "duh, yeah that makes sense".

So, I think we need a contest to come up with this more descriptive term for Singer's competence. Dufus, moron and idiot are already too mild.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, while your quotes are true you ignore basic reality. Sometimes you never get ahead.

Arc... There has ALWAYS been a time, in every session, when I was AHEAD. Sometimes I was ahead 5 credits (one hand) or sometimes I was ahead $20,000. And there were times when I was ahead $5,000 or more and gave it all back trying to keep on winning.

The point is that with tight loss limits and a strategy to quit with a win, you can put more money and keep more money in your pocket. You reject that because I don't think you have any concept of money management whether its in gambling or investing. If you do, please tell us what it is. It might help to clear this discussion and end this debate.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arcimedes wrote: "A baseball player may bat .300 but no expects him to get 3/10 of a hit on every trip to the plate."

Exactly right. But that's baseball.
Now we're talking about the money that's coming out of my pocket. And if you tell me that a video poker game has a 100.17% payback and I'm losing hundreds or thousands of dollars playing it, your payback of 100.17% means zilch, zip, zero, nada, bubkas to me.
In other words -- your theory means nothing. And I can't bank on your theory.

Yes, I can gamble with your theory, and I do. I try to play best paytables available. But I cannot take your theory to the bank. I can, however, take an actual win to the bank. So, returning to our point here... cashing out wins when you reach win goals is real money that can be deposited. Theory is not coin of the realm or legal tender.

Again the difference between you and me, Arc... and I think between you and perhaps 99% of all other gamblers... is that our goal is winning hard cash. Take the money and run.

[Alan Mendelson]

Can anyone imagine paying someone for 15 years and losing money the whole time?

Well, let's take a neutral position on this one, guys. There are people with mad money who might pay others to gamble for them. We really don't know what was made, do we? I've never seen any tax returns.

I do know that "teams" do lose -- I saw a team wiped out at Rincon after it lost three of the big progressives to "Sadies from San Diego" who sat on the open machine that the team didn't fill. I beat the team on one of the progressives about two years ago.

There are money losing companies that pay employees for years and then go out of business. I can give you a long list of banks and Savings & Loans that paid employees for years only to go belly up despite all their good math.

And to be honest, I wonder how much money a "team manager" gets paid considering it's not a full time job? $10 an hour plus 1% of the jackpot? One-half percent of the jackpot? I'm sure the money man who is financing the team doesn't want to give away all of his profit-- I know that I wouldn't.

Frank gave me a copy of his book. I haven't read much past the first few pages (interesting, but I have other things that keep me from finishing). I'm curious did he ever spell out the dollars and cents of who pays, wins and earns what on a team?

And as we have discussed before, unless you are playing something like a $25 denomination game, an AP is probably earning less than a fast food restaurant manager, and the fast food restaurant manager has benefits.

This entire AP argument appears to be pointless.

[Rob.Singer]

Come on, a "team owner" pays his slugs minimum wage less benefits because he is addicted to the larger progressive jackpots, and he counts on one of his players getting lucky each time. Problem is, as Alan showed us with the team that was wiped out of extinction at Rincon, it doesn't always happen. Frank for some reason has chosen to be one of those slugs, and it is probably also the reason why he's got a roommate instead of a family. These AP's are almost all alike: they play long long hours, they cherish the points above all else, they all claim to be winners even if they never risk a dime of their own money, and they ALL seem to have created a conundrum of personal problems because of their addiction to the game.

[arcimede$]

Arc... There has ALWAYS been a time, in every session, when I was AHEAD. Sometimes I was ahead 5 credits (one hand) or sometimes I was ahead $20,000. And there were times when I was ahead $5,000 or more and gave it all back trying to keep on winning.

I guess I need to add selective memory to your problems. If you've been ahead in every session you've ever played then you must be the luckiest player on the planet. For the rest of us my statement stands.

[arcimede$]

Come on, a "team owner" pays his slugs minimum wage less benefits because he is addicted to the larger progressive jackpots, and he counts on one of his players getting lucky each time. Problem is, as Alan showed us with the team that was wiped out of extinction at Rincon, it doesn't always happen. Frank for some reason has chosen to be one of those slugs, and it is probably also the reason why he's got a roommate instead of a family. These AP's are almost all alike: they play long long hours, they cherish the points above all else, they all claim to be winners even if they never risk a dime of their own money, and they ALL seem to have created a conundrum of personal problems because of their addiction to the game.

Looks like a nice self portrait. Once again the dufus makes claims he couldn't possibly know. Or, in other words, he is lying.

[arcimede$]

Well, let's take a neutral position on this one, guys. There are people with mad money who might pay others to gamble for them. We really don't know what was made, do we? I've never seen any tax returns.

Yeah, 15 years of funding a losing proposition. What planet do you live on?

I do know that "teams" do lose -- I saw a team wiped out at Rincon after it lost three of the big progressives to "Sadies from San Diego" who sat on the open machine that the team didn't fill. I beat the team on one of the progressives about two years ago.

You don't know how they did for the year. A small team does not expect to hit every progressive and does not need to hit all of them to win. All they need to do is always play with an advantage, have a sufficient bankroll and hit their share. I'm sorry Alan, but your claim here is pure nonsense. The fact you actually think like this is worrisome.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yeah, 15 years of funding a losing proposition. What planet do you live on?

You don't know how they did for the year. A small team does not expect to hit every progressive and does not need to hit all of them to win. All they need to do is always play with an advantage, have a sufficient bankroll and hit their share. I'm sorry Alan, but your claim here is pure nonsense. The fact you actually think like this is worrisome.

These comments are easily answered:

1. On the surface we don't know that he had the same financier for all of the attempts by his teams. But in fact, he didnt. He has talked about different teams and different financial arrangements over the years that he has managed teams. And he had different team members-- they were not a fixed group. Sometimes he played on the "team" when a regular player was not available. Does the fact that he didnt have the same team members or the same financier bring you down to Earth?

2. The team that used to play at Rincon is gone. Period. When the progressive was up to $70,000 last year, they got hit very hard trying to win it. In fact they were there for three days losing heavily on a 9/5 DDB paytable. They were so frustrated at the end that they sat in their seats playing one hand per minute (repeat one hand per minute) hoping they would not have to give up their seats. It didn't matter. They didn't get the $70k jackpot.

That was the third big progressive they failed to hit and they haven't been seen since.

Really Arc, are you going to defend this team now? I'm sure they were smart, well bankrolled, and knew how to play the game with an edge. The point is none of that guarantees a winner.

And so it is with any individual player. Be smart, well bankrolled, and know how to play and you are not guaranteed to be a winner.

Yet, you still resist the idea that winning when ahead can help you be a winner? Why don't you simply say-- yes, if that works for you then good for you.

I say that if your system works for you, then good for you. But we "regular players" like the idea of cashing out as winners.

[arcimede$]

Alan, Frank was playing with a >2% edge consistently. The chances that he lost in a team environment where they play millions of hands every year is almost zero. Of course, you don't know anything about the math so you will accept silly assertions instead. The fact they had the team change over time is just normal. People change their priorities, or some team members may not have been reliable. Some members may decide to go on their own since some of the winnings would go to the team sponsor. This is normal in any business. Why you would claim this has some meaning is strange.

As for the Rincon team you are getting to be as bad as the dufus. You are claiming knowledge you don't have. It's possible they simply didn't bring enough of their bankroll with them. Of course, it's also possible they didn't have a sufficient bankroll for the play. That would not surprise me either. If they did not have a sufficient bankroll then they aren't really pros. They are wannabes and were probably destined to eventually lose.

If I found a 2% edge on $100 machines I would be very tempted to play. However, I don't have the bankroll and I could easily lose what I have. If I failed it would not mean the math doesn't work. It simply means I had an insufficient bankroll. Of course, I might win like Dancer did. Just because one person won would not make it a good idea to bet above your bankroll either. From a mathematics point of view his bet was still a poor one.

[arcimede$]

Yet, you still resist the idea that winning when ahead can help you be a winner? Why don't you simply say-- yes, if that works for you then good for you.

I say that if your system works for you, then good for you. But we "regular players" like the idea of cashing out as winners.

Quitting while ahead will not change the math. I've explained this to you before and yet you keep with this silly nonsense. I've also told you to go ahead and try it and report back your results after a year or two. It's likely the only thing that will convince you of the truth.

[Alan Mendelson]

Now you are being absurd Arc. You wrote: As for the Rincon team you are getting to be as bad as the dufus. You are claiming knowledge you don't have.

Quite the contrary, my friend. That is the casino I play at. I knew the team members. Two couples from Reno. They're gone. I know what happened to them when they sat at the machines -- trying to block someone else from grabbing the $70,000 jackpot, and they failed at it. A guy from Vegas hit it.

They haven't been seen since.

And there you go again with your "2% edge." Yes, the marvelous 2% edge that does you no good unless YOU HAPPEN TO WIN.

You see Arc, all of your theoretical math can be filed under the title: "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" ... or.... "the math says I should win but why are my credit cards maxed out?"

And I love this one, Arc, because this really gets to the heart of the entire matter and why it pays to take your profits and run. You wrote: If I found a 2% edge on $100 machines I would be very tempted to play. However, I don't have the bankroll and I could easily lose what I have. If I failed it would not mean the math doesn't work. Yes, Arc, there is hope for you yet.

Arc, you also wrote in a different post: Quitting while ahead will not change the math. I've explained this to you before and yet you keep with this silly nonsense.

I do not disagree with you about the math. I am sure that the math will work over millions of hands, and to that I say:

A. I don't have a bankroll for millions of hands to see the "true math" play out
B. I don't want to be in a casino playing millions of hands to see the "true math" play out
C. After a while, video poker does get boring, and sitting too long hurts my back

And none of that is silly nonsense.

[Rob.Singer]

I like this! Alan's getting under arci's skin with more facts and common sense, he's showing arci how much all those "2% edge in of phantom bucks" are worth, and all poor arci can come up with is more theory to keep from going completely under.....

I 'd say another mind-clearing trip to Walgreen's might be the answer

[arcimede$]

Now you are being absurd Arc. You wrote: As for the Rincon team you are getting to be as bad as the dufus. You are claiming knowledge you don't have.

Quite the contrary, my friend. That is the casino I play at. I knew the team members. Two couples from Reno. They're gone. I know what happened to them when they sat at the machines -- trying to block someone else from grabbing the $70,000 jackpot, and they failed at it. A guy from Vegas hit it.

They haven't been seen since.

If they are from Reno they probably play there most often. So, you are confirming my statement. You provided no evidence that they have quit playing, you provided no evidence that they are bankrupt, etc. You are simply making assumptions that fit what you want to believe. It's called confirmation bias. You believe what you want to believe. Now, if you don't respond to the issues I raised above then are admitting you don't really know the relevant facts.

And there you go again with your "2% edge." Yes, the marvelous 2% edge that does you no good unless YOU HAPPEN TO WIN.

You see Arc, all of your theoretical math can be filed under the title: "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" ... or.... "the math says I should win but why are my credit cards maxed out?"

More of your silly nonsense. You might as being saying TVs can't work, cell phones can't work, etc. They are all based on the same mathematical principles. Once again you are using the logic that says you might get eaten by a man eating tiger so you should never leave your house.

I do not disagree with you about the math. I am sure that the math will work over millions of hands, and to that I say:

A. I don't have a bankroll for millions of hands to see the "true math" play out
B. I don't want to be in a casino playing millions of hands to see the "true math" play out
C. After a while, video poker does get boring, and sitting too long hurts my back

And none of that is silly nonsense.

Unless you've changed your gambling routine you will play a million hands in 6-7 years. Your entire argument just bit the big one. But, even if you play less you are still affected by the expected return of the games you play. The only difference is that range of results is a little wider. Sorry, you can try and ignore the math but it still applies to you and every other gambler even if they are in denial.

[Rob.Singer]

So very funny....and entertaining! Alan gives arci known examples about the team at Rincon (or should I say--the FORMER team!), he articulately explains all the facts as given to him, and all arci can do is make up a defense built on theory and probability, and then name-calls.

Imagine how much you would have enjoyed facing arci in a college debate: You present all the known facts, and arci responds with "Whatever really happened doesn't matter because it's what's SUPPOSE to happen according to theory that does....so you're lying, dufus!"

Is it any wonder why the poor guy has the struggles with life that he has today, as he's housebound- with only an immoral sneak out the backdoor to the Indian casinos every week as entertainment? That deserves a double!

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: You might as being saying TVs can't work, cell phones can't work, etc. They are all based on the same mathematical principles.

My dear friend Arc. While a TV, a cell phone and a video poker machine all operate using the same math and science, the TV is not going to deliver a clear signal only about one in 40,000 tries (about the chance of getting a royal with a video poker machine). The cell phone is not going to complete a call about 45% of the time (chance of getting a winning hand in most video poker games). The math and electronics of a TV are designed so that the damn TV will turn on and work when you want it to, and the math and electronics of the cell phone are designed so that the damn cell phone will turn on and work when you want it to. While the VIDEO POKER MACHINE has a RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR which says you will NOT get a royal flush, or a full house, or quads or even a pair when you want them but only sometimes if you are lucky.

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote: You might as being saying TVs can't work, cell phones can't work, etc. They are all based on the same mathematical principles.

My dear friend Arc. While a TV, a cell phone and a video poker machine all operate using the same math and science, the TV is not going to deliver a clear signal only about one in 40,000 tries (about the chance of getting a royal with a video poker machine). The cell phone is not going to complete a call about 45% of the time (chance of getting a winning hand in most video poker games). The math and electronics of a TV are designed so that the damn TV will turn on and work when you want it to, and the math and electronics of the cell phone are designed so that the damn cell phone will turn on and work when you want it to. While the VIDEO POKER MACHINE has a RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR which says you will NOT get a royal flush, or a full house, or quads or even a pair when you want them but only sometimes if you are lucky.

I doubted whether you would understand the analogy. Electronics work because of the law of large numbers. VP results approach the ER because of the law of large numbers. That's the way the statistics of large numbers work. What you are doing is claiming that because a few electrons may not flow as expected that somehow that will cause your TV to fail. However, it doesn't take all the electrons to flow as expected. When you have enough electrons it overcomes the few.

The same holds for VP. You keep going back to claiming that a miss here and there is important and I keep telling you that is expected. It's included in the math. Over time it all tends to average out, just like those good old electrons.