The Sisyphean Gambler

[Alan Mendelson]

First a question: is there really an Arcimede$? I know Rob exists because I met him but Arc only shows up to argue with Rob as if he is some inner demon and Rob goes out of his way to do battle with this demon. It is very strange.

Now to respond to Arc (or is it really the "Bizzarro world Rob?"):

If a player had an unlimited bankroll they might be able to keep playing forever and finish with a profit. But most players do not have an unlimited bankroll so we have to take our profits when they come.

Arc this is something that you can't recognize because your math is based on an unlimited bankroll of never ending play. The rest of us have to be human about it.

I hope you (singular or plural) can find peace with yourself or yourselves.

[redietz]

Alan,

Arc makes a good point. To rephrase it, since you are claiming that you get ahead in a session 95% of the time, and since the definition of session is wide open, then one can define a session as simply playing until ahead. Now, if one gets ahead so often, then one can simply quit, take a break, change machines, whatever, and the next session starts when it starts and (according to your and Rob's theory) one has a 95% chance of getting ahead again. So by breaking up play into these increments called "sessions," one can generate a never-ending series of profits.

Well, of course this is impossible, but it's easier to see the logical fallacy in this if you divide a single day's play into these various sessions.

I thik that was the gist of what arci was saying -- if I got it wrong, arci, correct me.

[arcimede$]

I thik that was the gist of what arci was saying -- if I got it wrong, arci, correct me.

Absolutely correct. It's very simple logic. Will Alan and the dufus continue to claim the impossible is true? Only time will tell.

[arcimede$]

First a question: is there really an Arcimede$? I know Rob exists because I met him but Arc only shows up to argue with Rob as if he is some inner demon and Rob goes out of his way to do battle with this demon. It is very strange.

Actually, I show up to argue with you a lot more than the dufus. So, I guess that means you must be the demon.

If a player had an unlimited bankroll they might be able to keep playing forever and finish with a profit. But most players do not have an unlimited bankroll so we have to take our profits when they come.

Arc this is something that you can't recognize because your math is based on an unlimited bankroll of never ending play. The rest of us have to be human about it.

I hope you (singular or plural) can find peace with yourself or yourselves.

I see, you're claiming all the math is wrong and that the ER is a myth. Interesting way to get around your cognitive dissonance.

And, it does not require an infinite bankroll to have an extremely high probability of winning. One just has to know what they are doing.

[Alan Mendelson]

Again you think I argue against the math and I don't. What I am talking about is the reality of playing in a casino with real money and pocketing the wins before the cold snap hits.

Now if I were playing quarters or dollars the cold snaps wouldn't hurt but I'm playing bigger denominations and so I am going to get out when the going is good. I am leveraging my bets for bigger returns.

Now I see the problem. If I were playing five-cent video poker there would be no need to employ a "quit when ahead" strategy because my bankroll could survive even the grand canyon of downturns. Well my bankroll might be too limited for play higher denoms and that's why a hit and run strategy makes sense -- because I am trying to leverage a smaller bankroll for a bigger return.

The key is knowing when to quit. If I were playing quarters only sleep or hunger would end my sessions.

Edited to add (since I wrote the above while in a parking lot):

Now, let's take a look at the advantage of playing "quit when you're ahead." You can play bigger denominations, and take advantage of the wins that come along without going through the long term "grind" and you can actually pocket more money. How can you pocket more money? Simply this-- and it's all according to your math, guys.

If you are playing a game with a return of 100.17% your long term is only going to be a gain of 0.17%.

But if you employ a strategy of quitting each session when you are ahead by 2% or 5% or 10% and you recognize those win goals and quit then, you will pocket more money.

Can you be be ahead 2% or 5% or 10% in a session? Of course you can be, if you stop to realize that you are. Can you play a session when you will never be ahead? Of course you can. The "skill" is having a loss limit on those losing sessions so that when you do have the winning sessions they will offset those losing sessions.

This kind of accounting goes on in all kinds of businesses and investing. But why do you APs think it can't apply to video poker? Explain it to me slowly.

Now, what Arc suggested above does not indicate any win goal, does it? So how are you defining your sessions Arc? How much are you winning? You are makign statements without definitions of a win -- and that, as we say in the business world -- is the bottom line.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan,

Arc makes a good point. To rephrase it, since you are claiming that you get ahead in a session 95% of the time, and since the definition of session is wide open, then one can define a session as simply playing until ahead. Now, if one gets ahead so often, then one can simply quit, take a break, change machines, whatever, and the next session starts when it starts and (according to your and Rob's theory) one has a 95% chance of getting ahead again. So by breaking up play into these increments called "sessions," one can generate a never-ending series of profits.

Well, of course this is impossible, but it's easier to see the logical fallacy in this if you divide a single day's play into these various sessions.

I thik that was the gist of what arci was saying -- if I got it wrong, arci, correct me.

Nice idea. Except that neither Rob or I define sessions your way.

[Rob.Singer]

First, notice how defensive arci gets over any disagreement, which is why I taunted him about taking family vacations. His reaction is priceless because while he thinks he's being devious by trying to "ignore" that which be just cannot ignore, he's exposing his utter irritation and misery brought on of course, by his own self-induced humiliation. Just keep wondering what it would be like to take a family vacation arci, if only to Tahoe

Now onto his loose logic--and redietz' being misled by arci--about being ahead when playing. The reason arci took the time out from his "busy & humanitarian-like day" to counter what Alan, Grocnhowski & I have been saying, is because when you can only guess in the face of factual information, all one has left is diversion and deflection. That's what arci's "argument" is based upon, and it is also going to once again be the cause of his "other" embarrassment.

It's very easy to understand the very straightforward point that a player who plays BP will always get ahead at least one (or five, for max bet players) credits in 95%+ of every session they play. I've easily accomplished that by playing BP & an advanced BP game in winning 85% of the sessions I played that required a much higher win goal.

Then in comes a math-challenged arci, who, because he doesn't want to believe in such a fact, creates a diversion that he wants to believe is something no one's ever thought of before. He says if you win a credit then you will never lose. But first, it's already been acknowledged that there will be no getting ahead 5% of the time, so his claim is baseless. There is no "generating an endless series of profits" because that can't be done, I haven't done it, and when win goals are implemented then you may have attained at least a five credit profit at some point along the way (as we have been saying) but a player--even me--is not stopping at that point and instead, realizes a pre-set profit "only" 85% of the time.

That is what this is about, and not some theorization about what shouldn't't be possible because someone either doesn't want it to be true or doesn't choose to understand the concept. It's also why arci chose the diversion about the impossible "non-stop profitting" that redietz followed right down into the ground, without supplying all the necessary details because if he did, he would have exposed his own lies without me doing that.

Finally, vpgenius offers an excellent free gaming opportunity for anyone who'd like to try this out,and see for themselves....if they don't want to try it on the nickel machines as I recently reported on. But of course, detractors and those who,can't stand facts won't do that because it's more important that they deny reality and create theory no matter how dumb and blind. And as we've seen, arci cannot afford any further handicaps up there these days....

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob... you lost me on this one. Would you please put aside your personal attacks on Arc and respond to the issue. Your response has me confused and I'm the guy who supports your concept of win goals. Geesh.

[slingshot]

I think it's easy to understand and correct me if I'm wrong. Set a reasonable win goal and quit when reached. Don't try to continue in the hopes of adding additional wins?

[arcimede$]

Again you think I argue against the math and I don't. What I am talking about is the reality of playing in a casino with real money and pocketing the wins before the cold snap hits.

Sorry Alan, but you arguing against the math. The math is based on randomness which tells you there is no such thing "pocketing the wins before the cold snap hits". The cold snap can hit when you first sit down. If you say it won't then you are stating the machines are not random. What you call reality is just your own fantasies.

Now if I were playing quarters or dollars the cold snaps wouldn't hurt but I'm playing bigger denominations and so I am going to get out when the going is good. I am leveraging my bets for bigger returns.

No, you are just babbling nonsense.

Now I see the problem. If I were playing five-cent video poker there would be no need to employ a "quit when ahead" strategy because my bankroll could survive even the grand canyon of downturns. Well my bankroll might be too limited for play higher denoms and that's why a hit and run strategy makes sense -- because I am trying to leverage a smaller bankroll for a bigger return.

Except for that little problem of randomness. You can't always "hit". So, your strategy is worthless.

The key is knowing when to quit. If I were playing quarters only sleep or hunger would end my sessions.

No, the key is understanding how the games work. Even though I keep informing you of the facts, you continue to repeat complete and utter nonsense.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think it's easy to understand and correct me if I'm wrong. Set a reasonable win goal and quit when reached. Don't try to continue in the hopes of adding additional wins?

Pretty much, that is it. The risk you take once reaching a win goal is that you will give it all back trying to win more.

Now, our AP friends say quitting "makes no sense" and you indeed can "win more." But they are "long term gamblers." I'm not, and can anyone really say they are there for the long term despite their claims?

I think if you polled most people, they would say that not quitting when ahead puts you at risk of losing what you won.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I'm going to stop you right here when you say "Sorry Alan, but you arguing against the math. The math is based on randomness which tells you there is no such thing "pocketing the wins before the cold snap hits".

Sorry Arc, but there is no math here at all. There is only common sense. Every dollar you take home is a dollar that is not going back to the casino.

[arcimede$]

Rob... you lost me on this one. Would you please put aside your personal attacks on Arc and respond to the issue. Your response has me confused and I'm the guy who supports your concept of win goals. Geesh.

Don't waste your time, Alan. It was just more nonsense.

For example, let's say that one could really get ahead 95% of the time playing BP. How many of those are just 5 credits, how many are just 10 credits? Would anyone drive to casino to quit after one hand? Of course not. It's just silly nonsense.

So, the only meaningful question is how often would you reach a point where you consider it a sufficient amount to warrant leaving the casino? Now it gets real interesting. That number is likely less than 50% but if anyone wants to know I could figure it out.

The point is the quit while ahead plan just went down the toilet. There is no such thing when you look at reality.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I'm going to stop you right here when you say "Sorry Alan, but you arguing against the math. The math is based on randomness which tells you there is no such thing "pocketing the wins before the cold snap hits".

Sorry Arc, but there is no math here at all. There is only common sense. Every dollar you take home is a dollar that is not going back to the casino.

Wrong again, Alan. It just waits until your next trip (or the one after) before disappearing into the casino's coffers. The only way you will lose less money is to play less and you don't need win goals to accomplish that.

[redietz]

I have to admit that I am completely baffled as to why anyone would think win goals would make a difference. Putting aside video poker for a moment, the "applied theory" of win goals should work for any casino game. Taking it a step further, the "applied theory" of win goals should work regardless of the return of the game, as long as one gets ahead at some point in a "session." Well, I can state that win goals do not make a difference if you plan on ever playing again, regardless of the game, and that win goals don't cancel out the effects of a negative return game. I mean, from what's been stated here, win goals should be applicable to anything from blackjack (-.2%) to keno (-50%).

Why is video poker with a negative EV of, say, -.5%, different from blackjack (-.2%) or keno (-50%)?

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz you are missing the psychological benefits of winning. We go to casinos to have fun. It is often for a weekend of enjoyment. Take the money and enjoy yourself.

Arc: my win goal is 20% of my bankroll. If I start with $2500 and make $500 it has become a very good trip. If I get lucky and win more I can use an increasing stop to assure myself bigger profits.

Sure "I'll be back." But I can also enjoy the win. Royals don't come often enough for me to sit there hoping to get another one anytime soon. So a 20% win makes me feel great.

If I made only 5% per day, I'd be a millionaire pretty darn quick.

[arcimede$]

Yes, if win goals worked it would apply to all casino games and just about anything else where chance was involved. The problem is, of course, you can't count on getting ahead.

I think we're somewhere close to grade school level logic here.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, now arci backtracked some and, after explaining why he did that, my explanation will be easier to understand.

When we talk of being ahead 95% of the sessions at some time during your session, there are no theories....no probabilities or what-ifs involved, because we mean just that. Again, it's the shocking difference between what REALLY happens vs. what might occur according to the math if x & y were in place. And in this particular case, arci isn't even using the math and instead, he just throws up baseless nonsense because he doesn't like where our argument is leading. Thus, the diversion of "but gee Alan, no one will ever go to a casino, win five credits, then go home". First of all that's completely false. I've done it three times on the $100 machines at Mirage, MGM and Ceasars. But while arci dug hard to try and come up with a premise instead of an answer, the truth remains what we said. Whether people actually go out and do it or not is not the issue at all. It's simply an issue that arose out of what setting goals does for the player. Redietz doesn't see it and I understand why. But I bet I could convince him if I spent four sessions worth of play at machines with him. Arci OTOH just doesn't like it because he'll never go on vacation again!

[slingshot]

You guys must be kidding me. The biggest losing times I've had is whenever I'm ahead and thought it was my lucky day. And it is the most sickening feeling to think I'm that much out of control. I once totalled up a week and had I quit when ahead, I would have an extra $800 instead of LOSING that much.

[Alan Mendelson]

Slingshot Im like you. Your experience has been my experience. Ive been ahead as much as 6 thou and gave it all back trying to hit a royal. Six thousand dollars. Thats more than a months pay for 95% of the workers in America, and I blew it thinking that I could keep winning.

This is why I now embrace this concept of quitting when you're ahead. The ironic thing is that on my website three years ago I wrote that "quitting when ahead" should be a New Year's Resolution for every gambler -- and I didn't keep it myself because I was in pursuit of a royal.

Rob describes how people feel like schmucks leaving the casino after giving back big wins, and I know exactly what he's talking about.

Arc continues to harp on his "math" about random games and how quitting makes "no sense." Well having several hundred or thousand dollars in your pocket makes a lot of sense.... and makes it even easier to play again the next time.

As Rob has said many times... what a great feeling it is to go home with a little extra.

Compute the value of that, Arc.