The Sisyphean Gambler

[Rob.Singer]

Yes, it's all true and as a matter of fact (yes arci, those pesky little facts again) AP's know as much as anyone else how absolutely awful it feels walking out those casino doors ending up losing as much as they were previously ahead. Their saving grace? Why, those phantom bucks of course that appear simply because they played a machine for ten hours that was at +.23%. Ain't theory wonderful?

What hasn't been discussed further is arci's stupid claim that if you can get ahead by a penny you will always be ahead. A fitting dead end after I ripped it to shreds two posts ago.

VACATION TIME! Oops....wrong time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Can we pause for a moment and consolidate. I don't want to go off into too many directions. Am I correct in summing up the two positions this way:

Position A: If you are playing a game with a positive edge because of the pay table, comps, cashback, promos, etc. it makes no sense to quit when you're ahead because you are always playing a positive game.

Position B: Even a positive game because of the pay table, comps, cashback, promos, etc. doesn't mean you will come out ahead so when you do have a profit take the profit amount (win goal) that makes sense to you or you could lose it back to the casino.

Does this sum up the two sides?

[redietz]

I'm frankly surprised that seasoned gamblers like Alan and Rob experience these kinds of emotions regarding winning and losing while walking out of a casino's doors. I guess that's why most people gamble -- some kind of satisfaction or emotional investment from winning a few bucks. I can't really relate to this walking out the door with a "Larry Bird" smirk because I won "that session." All that matters, to me, is whether I'm ahead lifetime and deserve to be ahead lifetime.

Do I feel better having won than lost? Yes. Does it beat a really good cup of coffee versus a bad one? Not really.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz let me make a point that you might have missed: I have never had a winning year gambling. So, I savor every winning session I can get. Now, Ive studied the systems of Dancer and Grochowski, and Ive gone to Dancer lectures, and Ive followed the same strategy that Arc plays and advocates and I dont hit royals once every 40-thou+ hands, and when I play a game with a 99.2% payback I get less than a 99.2% payback and when I played only 9/6 Jacks for years I had less than a 99.5% payback.

In other words -- Ive tried it YOUR way -- and after ten+ years of playing video poker I need to try something else that might really work. So if someone comes up with an idea that will allow me to walk out of the casino with more money than I walked in with, Im going to pay attention.

Dancer and Growchowski and all of the other "correct players" haven't done me any good.

[arcimede$]

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.

Once again Alan is completely wrong. I have never said quitting makes "no sense". In fact, I stated many times that the earlier one quits playing negative games the better.

So, read this slowly Alan. I know you can figure it out one of these days. Unless you are never going to play again, the exact moment you quit will have no impact on your results over time.

You can quit when you are ahead, behind or even. It doesn't matter.

[slingshot]

The earlier one quits WHEN AHEAD. And that WILL impact your results over time. It DOES matter.

[Alan Mendelson]

The earlier one quits WHEN AHEAD. And that WILL impact your results over time. It DOES matter.

Sligshot hits the bullseye again, Arc. If you realize that you are showing a profit at some point in your session, and quit with that profit, your profits will add up over time. And one of these days you will realize that this will have an impact on your results over time.

When you do quit, Arc, whether you are ahead, behind or even DOES matter.

[slingshot]

Another point that is most often overlooked is you're looking for the win goals and then all of a sudden the biggie hits. Let's say I'm on quarters and trying to get $5 ahead and all of a sudden 4 A's w/kicker hits. All right, so I've maybe won a few $5 wins and lost $75 on a bad session. Would I care?

[Rob.Singer]

That's correct sling. One of arci's constant lies about my strategy is how he admits there will be a lot of "smaller winners" but then goes on to proudly but blindly proclaim how there will be a large loser that will wipe all those profits out and more. Of course, such a critic would never want to accept the reality that there are far more larger big winners that occur along the way, and in exactly the structure that the strategy was developed within. Arci lives on the Internet with lies, distractions and diversions. He can't stop--especially now with all that he's straddled himself with--so just sit back and enjoy the taunts . !

[arcimede$]

Sligshot hits the bullseye again, Arc. If you realize that you are showing a profit at some point in your session, and quit with that profit, your profits will add up over time. And one of these days you will realize that this will have an impact on your results over time.

When you do quit, Arc, whether you are ahead, behind or even DOES matter.

Complete nonsense. What you are saying for this to be true, Alan, is that the machines are not random. Of course, you always come back and state you believe the machines are random. Complete and total cognitive dissonance.

If the machines are random it can make no difference when you quit one particular session. Your results over time for any given number of hands will be exactly the same no matter when you quit. A random series of events does not realize you left one day and came back another day. It just knows you continue to play one hand at a time and as you continue to play your results will approach the ER.

You do understand that when you believe you will do better by quitting at a particular time that you are claiming you will end up with more high paying hands than you would otherwise. You are claiming you will get more quads per number of hands played than the math dictates.

It's no wonder you avoid the coin flip examples. At some level you realize it would destroy your fantasy world. You want to continue to believe in your fantasies.

[Rob.Singer]

You jumped out of bed to say THAT? Or was it to prepare oatmeal, and this nonsensical rant was just a byproduct of your frustration these days?

Ask Bob Dancer how many times he's been ahead each time he's stepped foot inside the Silverton and see what he says. That'll bolster your confusion because he'll say he wouldnt't know and it doesn't matter anyway. All he knows is his slot club level, how many points he needs each month to max out on the drawing entries and to get "the top mailers", and what resulting theoretical "edge" he's created as a result of it all. Ha-Ha....then go ahead and ask him if HE'S ever been banned from playing vp in that casino.

You see my friend, your life has become driven by a stark disbelief in reality, and instead is now overcome by a virtual reliance on theoretical situations because that is really all you have left in life. You actually NEED to read the BS Dancer writes so you can think of what it would be like if such baloney were true -- without of course reasoning out why he always leaves out how it is he just keeps getting invited back in to "destroy" the same casinos over & over again month after month and year after year with that wonderful "AP EDGE" with no break in the routine at all. And that includes no break in having to go to WORK at all either, as long as he allows his severe addiction to continue to control him, at an age well past retirement for most people.

I guess I'll just have to wonder and be envious of what it's all about too....as, gee, it's just TOO HARD trying to figure out what happens to that quarter million he blabs about putting thru the machines there each month, and why quitting while ahead is not an option for addicts!

[arcimede$]

Ask Bob Dancer how many times he's been ahead each time he's stepped foot inside the Silverton and see what he says. That'll bolster your confusion because he'll say he wouldnt't know and it doesn't matter anyway. All he knows is his slot club level, how many points he needs each month to max out on the drawing entries and to get "the top mailers", and what resulting theoretical "edge" he's created as a result of it all. Ha-Ha....then go ahead and ask him if HE'S ever been banned from playing vp in that casino.

You see my friend, your life has become driven by a stark disbelief in reality, and instead is now overcome by a virtual reliance on theoretical situations because that is really all you have left in life. You actually NEED to read the BS Dancer writes so you can think of what it would be like if such baloney were true -- without of course reasoning out why he always leaves out how it is he just keeps getting invited back in to "destroy" the same casinos over & over again month after month and year after year with that wonderful "AP EDGE" with no break in the routine at all. And that includes no break in having to go to WORK at all either, as long as he allows his severe addiction to continue to control him, at an age well past retirement for most people.

I guess I'll just have to wonder and be envious of what it's all about too....as, gee, it's just TOO HARD trying to figure out what happens to that quarter million he blabs about putting thru the machines there each month, and why quitting while ahead is not an option for addicts!

I see the dufus is overflowing in Dancer envy once again. It's so obvious even a cave man could see it.

I rarely read anything from Dancer. It's mostly obvious stuff to anyone with math skills. I know that eliminates the dufus right away so I guess he waits breathlessly every week to read the next Dancer column.

[redietz]

I'm no Granhoff/Dancer fan -- he promotes video poker as a beatable game when, without his personal gambling history, which leads to his top notch mailers, a young version of himself couldn't win in today's vp environment. I think he's stepped over the line into "shillesque" territory.

Having said that, Dancer's foibles really have no bearing on the whole "quitting while ahead" theory. It seems a logical fallacy, an illusion, to me. And running simulations should bear this out. Speaking of bears, as the subject of "Whale Hunt in the Desert" so aptly said, this kind of gambling leads to players who "eat like birds and shit like bears."

[Rob.Singer]

Your opinion about quitting at a point when ahead is understood, but has never been the case with my play strategy or in any of the actual tests I've done here at Terribles (of which I've explained the actual results in a thread here) or online at vpgenius. No simulation can take the place of actually doing something. All that does is deliver theory in a format that no one ever repeats in a casino visit.

Which leads to why Dancer needs to use so much smoke & mirrors when he babbles on about playing with his mythical edge. When I exposed how arci couldnt't possibly have won 12 years by playing that oddball oej machine at some Minnesota Indian casino since his every move was being tracked, and no casino would ever allow anyone to continue playing if they couldnt't figure out how to make a profit off them, he panicked by saying how he supposedly uses the 'ol "pull your card" trick....only after checking there's no way he knows if it even works. Further, casinos for years have been onto that silliness, and no one could ever keep up such an easily spotted tactic for even a six month period.

So with Dancer and his mythical "edge" along with his quarter million in action every month that he's bragged about for years at the Silverton, it's rather obvious...if also unspeakable...that, if I've been stopped after playing 25c thru $2 7/5 & 8/5 BP and 8/5 SDBP while having 8 winning visits in 7 or so months along with a pack of W2G's, doesn't it seem a tad bit strange that he and his "2% edge", which equates out to a "nice monthly income" of around $5000, would have been stopped years ago? Or do the casinos actually take those phantom bucks seriously.....

That's a good example of why he refuses to debate me on his radio show. I asked him to recently. He values public perception a lot more than truth.

[Alan Mendelson]

I really can't understand why anyone would think that the long term math of video poker invalidates the concept of quitting when ahead? What is it that makes you think that:

a. you can't be ahead at some point in every session, or
b. you can't be ahead at some point in enough sessions

to offset the times you lose a limited amount?

Why do you oppose that? Frankly, I think it is more likely that I can be ahead at some point in any session than I will hit a royal flush. And in EVERY video poker game playing conventional, long term strategy you MUST hit a royal flush within the expected number of hands to have a positive return.

Doesn't it make more sense to you guys to pocket the small wins that come along instead of trying for a royal that might not come in 40,000 hands?

Honestly, when I think about it, the only people who should be preaching long term strategy are the casinos. Everyone else should use a hit and run strategy.

[arcimede$]

I really can't understand why anyone would think that the long term math of video poker invalidates the concept of quitting when ahead? What is it that makes you think that:

a. you can't be ahead at some point in every session, or
b. you can't be ahead at some point in enough sessions

to offset the times you lose a limited amount?

Simple math.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, if you really believe in the "simple math" then explain the variance and how that will affect a player's bottom line. I know video poker players who over a lifetime of play NEVER got a royal flush.

They never got a royal because of what you will call the "variance." Therefore, you cannot rely on math to guarantee a win. So, why not assure yourself of a win by taking the profits when they come?

Arc, if you could guarantee me a royal flush every 40-thou or so hands, I would be showing a very handsome profit right now. I'm behind -- in the last year -- about 3 royals. And those three royals would give me a very nice overall profit at this point.

As I said before, if the math ain't working, gimme somethin' else that might do me better. And a quit when ahead strategy just might be it.

[Rob.Singer]

BINGO! Alan, you hit the AP on the head! The only truth about the long term is that it ONLY applies to the casinos.

Simple math indeed.

[arcimede$]

Arc, if you really believe in the "simple math" then explain the variance and how that will affect a player's bottom line. I know video poker players who over a lifetime of play NEVER got a royal flush.

They never got a royal because of what you will call the "variance." Therefore, you cannot rely on math to guarantee a win. So, why not assure yourself of a win by taking the profits when they come?

Arc, if you could guarantee me a royal flush every 40-thou or so hands, I would be showing a very handsome profit right now. I'm behind -- in the last year -- about 3 royals. And those three royals would give me a very nice overall profit at this point.

As I said before, if the math ain't working, gimme somethin' else that might do me better. And a quit when ahead strategy just might be it.

The problem is there is nothing better. The results of a group of players for a random game will form a bell curve around the expected return. That is a simple fact. All the wishing and hoping will not change that fact. Nor will choosing any particular time to quit.

Just to help you out I've developed a simulation program. It allows a win goal and loss limit as input. It runs through any number of sessions you would like. For a first run I set a win goal at 500 credits and a loss limit at 2500 playing BP. I think the results are interesting.

It turns out you get ahead by at least 5 credits 96% of the time. It turns out you win around 52% of your sessions. The return overall for 1000 sessions came out to 99.1% which is very close to the ER.

The math is the math.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks for the setting up the simulation. Does this mean that the win goal strategy according to the math does no harm?

Now, what if you tighten your loss limit. Instead of a $2500 loss, let's do a $250 loss limit and let's do a smaller 5% win which is $125. ($125 is not a bad days pay either.) But let's add another factor: a trailing win/loss stop so just in case you win more than $125 (say you hit quads coming out of the chute) you can raise your win/loss stop to $250.

Regarding your bell curve analogy: while the math might dictate a bell curve, there is no reason for any player to let himself be at the losing end of the bell curve. If you can beat the bell curve, you should do it. You shouldn't be the schmendrick who leaves the casino saying "well today was my day to lose, but tomorrow I'll be at the high end of the bell curve."