Quit While You're Ahead... Revisited

[RS__]

Any other variables, Rob? So far, that's definitely sim-able (not that I'm willing to take the time to sim some complicated and convoluted system....and if I were to do it, I expect your response to be something like, "You didn't do it right. My system can't be simmed. Wise up").

Isn't/wasn't there a guy who would bet some amount of money, like $100K, that you can't come up with a winning system if every bet is placed on a -EV game? Sounds like the perfect guy for Rob to make a bet with. All the games you play are -EV, and you surely have $100K to wager. Sounds like an easy $100K.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's why Rob's system can't be simulated:

Rob makes adjustments to his system according to where he stands in relation to a win goal. For example, he will play conventional video poker strategy if all is going well, but if he is in a deep hole he will make a special play. While you think you might be able to simulate this, it appears from my discussions with Rob that this is a judgment call he makes based on where he is, what game he's on, what denomination and how big his losses have been.

A few cases in point: holding only three aces in a full house on 7/5 Bonus poker is a special play under certain circumstances; breaking up trip queens with three to the royal is another special play when he was really showing a deep, deep loss at the $25/coin level.

Now some of you are making snap judgments about being able to quit when ahead and allowing the small profits to build. For example, Dan wrote this:

If you could predict with certainty that you would leave ahead money that session, then yes, it would be a 100% advantage play.

But since you can't, it is not.

This is because sometimes you will never be up. You will lose from the start and never recover to even for the session. So those have to be factored in, too, especially when you run BELOW expectation and lose far more than the machine's theoretical loss.

This is why I ask each of you to keep your own personal log over the next ten or twenty visits and see for yourself if you ever were showing a profit, and keep track of what your maximum profit was. Compile your own records and report back.

Indeed you might never have a profit in any session -- and if you play a high volatility game such as Double Double Bonus that might be the case. Or you might find you have many sessions showing a small or a moderate profit at some time.

I personally have found that at least 90% of my sessions have a profit at some point. Sometimes the profit is large because I hit quads early on -- or a $100,000 royal with only $1,000 in the machine.

And remember what Rob says about having loss limits. It makes no sense to have small win goals if you have big loss limits.

Even if you find you have a small profit at some point in 95% of the sessions you play, you might never choose to quit because you don't want just a small profit -- you want a larger profit, or you are willing to risk the small gains for a chance at a larger profit. That's okay if that's what you want to do. And if you're in Vegas for a three day weekend it's unlikely you would ever quit with just a $100 profit or even a $500 profit -- you'd want to keep playing because that's why you're there.

Rob's win goal and loss limit strategy really fits hit and run visits -- when you are not staying at a casino resort for three days. It works best just as how he used it -- when he would make the drive from Phoenix to Vegas, play, hit and leave. As he told me there were many times he didn't even stay overnight in a hotel if there was a big payoff in his pocket.

I used a similar "hit and run" strategy at Rincon. I never stayed overnight at Rincon. Unfortunately I had a large win goal and would not accept a $500 win. Sometimes I didn't accept a $3,500 profit and put it back in the machines, and I regret doing that now.

It's like the turtle -- slow and steady wins the race.

By the way, many craps players use a quit when ahead strategy. It is very common for a craps table to empty after a hot roll. Why is it that craps players can accept this strategy but video poker and other game players can't?

[RS__]

Rob makes adjustments to his system according to where he stands in relation to a win goal. For example, he will play conventional video poker strategy if all is going well, but if he is in a deep hole he will make a special play. While you think you might be able to simulate this, it appears from my discussions with Rob that this is a judgment call he makes based on where he is, what game he's on, what denomination and how big his losses have been.

So these judgement calls....are they in a strict set of circumstances, where any other player would make the same decision if they were using Rob's strategy? Or is it an emotionally based judgement call? If the former, then it can still definitely be simmed. If the latter, then of course it cannot be simmed because it's based on emotion -- something I thought Rob said isn't used in his strategic play.


I'm still curious -- how did Rob come up with his strategy and what made him decide it's a winning strategy? I don't care what Rob's friends or whatever told him -- I want to know how HE came up with the strategy and what made him decide, definitively, it's a winning system.

[Alan Mendelson]

RS___ you ask valid questions that Rob should answer.

Frankly, if you told me that you averaged profits of $100,000 per year for ten years with your strategy I'd call it a winning system. Do you win that much?

There is no reason why there can't be multiple winning systems. No one has an "exclusive" on how to win at video poker.

[RS__]

I don't think Rob has won that much.

[redietz]

Alan, you're a journalist. You need to correct what you stated in the post above. You said, "Here's why Rob's system can't be simulated":

Now you and I both know that is a statement of fact. Yet you aren't qualified to make that statement because (1) you really don't know Rob's system and (2) you don't know what programmers could or could not simulate.

So I think it would be helpful to the readers if you corrected your statement, "Here's why Rob's system can't be simulated" to "Here's why I, with my limited understanding of Rob's system and programming simulations, think it can't be simulated."

I know nothing about programming, but if computers can simulate speech and a trip to Mars, I have a hard time believing a program can't simulate Rob's system. I may, however, be wrong.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz I stand corrected. Based on my discussions and interviews with Rob, that's my understanding of his system and why it can't be simulated without the programmer knowing in detail exactly what Rob is thinking.

Frankly, one of the reasons why I have criticized Rob's system/strategy/methodology is that you really don't know when to use a special play and when not to use one. Rob doesn't appear to have any iron clad rules that others can follow, and I guess that would mean a programmer would not know how to program a simulation of Rob's system either.

So, until Rob can put down in writing exactly how his system and special plays are used, how can his system possibly be simulated?

Look... he's posted that he always will drop a kicker when holding 3 bonus cards (aces, twos, threes, fours) and he's even said that in one of the videos I did with him on my main website, but then he posted here a photo of how he held a kicker and made the 1/47 jackpot draw for $50,000. So, how do you program a simulation for that?

But with that said, his method of quitting when ahead is simple to understand and simple to follow. Try it yourself -- just on paper, if you like. Keep track of your own sessions. Yes, redietz, it will work when you play deuces wild.

[redietz]

Good memory, Alan.

The Palms, unfortunately, killed my beloved old 25-cent FPDW, and the better games now earn no comp/drawing points, so except for working off my last $300 in comps, I have no real good reason to visit the Palms, although I do like the coffee shop. The sports book is the flagship for Cantor, but one can access the same lines at other Cantor properties.

P.S. Someone just reminded me that the giant Hooters has opened at the Palms, so maybe there is a reason to visit the Palms, after all.

[jbjb]

Twin Peaks is a lot better than Hooters.

[Alan Mendelson]

Twin Peaks is a lot better than Hooters.

Twin Peaks isn't another name for Hooters?

[jbjb]

http://www.twinpeaksrestaurant.com/

There is one on the strip. Go in and see.

Now carry on with the original thread.

[quahaug]

Allan in order to be up at some point 95% of the time you have to have large loss limit. Robs win goal is 5% of his bankroll. That's a very high loss limit and is why he can claim a high percent of session wins. How many units are you willing to risk to be one unit up? In blackjack a one unit win goal at 5% of your bankroll means you're risking twenty units to win one. You would have a high number of winning sessions but not twenty in a row, I can assure you.

[redietz]

But Rob is a strong player.

[Alan Mendelson]

allan in order to be up at some point 95% of the time you have to have large loss limit.

really????

[quahaug]

really????

Yes really. How many units do you want to risk to win one unit minimum profit. Give us a number. If you throw a hundy in a vp machine with a five dollar win goal will you win 19 sessions out of 20? If you do that's great but I doubt it's going to happen. Of coarse if you hit a big hand or medium hand early in your play it's all good but with just twenty hands up front those hands won't come so easy.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry. I've never experienced the need to have a big bankroll to be up one bet playing Bonus Poker. I don't know what you're reading but I haven't experienced it.

[redietz]

Quahaug, you're clearly from the school of math theory applying to reality. Surely by now you realize that math theory has been debunked.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think quahaug should keep a log of his next ten casino trips and let us know what happened.

[quahaug]

Alan, you seem to have no clue what I'm talking about yet you talk about stop losses as if you do. Lets say you live next door to a casino and you walk in every day and play any game, vp tables, slots, whatever, you have a win goal of one unit and a stop loss of one unit. Are you going to win 95% of your sessions? If so I wouldn't live next door to the casino, I'd OWN the casino!. If you have a per trip bankroll that is your stop loss. What % is your win goal? Give us a figure that is the perfect ratio of risk to profit.

[arcimede$]

BTW, I also simulated Singer's system and it provided zero benefit.

What we have here is a set of folks who don't understand a thing about math telling us they are smarter than all the PhD mathematicians in the world. Anyone that accepts that kind of nonsense deserves whatever they get.