Technical Analysis and Gambling Returns

[arcimede$]

Arc, if you really believe each hand is random (and you say it is) then what has come before will have no bearing on the next hand you play. To say that you are playing a +EV game or machine means nothing except for that one single hand.

Yes, each session is made of individual independent hands. The probability distribution of those hands is easy to calculate.

Now, are you telling me you can string together one +EV hand after another?

I'm telling you the distribution of those hands times the return for each result leads to a profit over time.

Your problem is YOUR ARE arguing with probability theory.

[jbjb]

In order to win at a +EV game you also must have a trend of more winners than losers.

This is 100% false.

Card counters don't win more hands then then lose.
Hole carders don't win more hands then they lose.
VP players don't win more hands then they lose.

We consistently profit because the payoff in these situations when we have the advantage exceeds the odds. Take a dealt 4 to a royal such as As, Ks, Qs, Js, 2h. Twelve cards will give you a pair for a push, eight will give you a flush, three well give you a straight and one will give a royal. So out the 47 remaining cards only 12 are winners. That's a win rate of less than 1 in 4. I don't count pushes as a win but if you want to, 24 of the 47 give you something. You're a slight favorite but have a huge advantage on this hand due to the payoffs.

[regnis]

Yes, each session is made of individual independent hands. The probability distribution of those hands is easy to calculate.



I'm telling you the distribution of those hands times the return for each result leads to a profit over time.

Your problem is YOUR ARE arguing with probability theory.

This is 100% false---Arci has overstated this.

Arci says "the distribution of those hands times the return for each result leads to a profit over time." That is an absolute falsehood.
He would have been correct in saying "probably leads to a profit", as we all know that results may vary. All the probability (+EV)in the world does not necessarily lead to a profit, but the odds are favorable that it will.

[redietz]

I think if you specify a number (like three million or five million or something), you can -- for all practical intents -- say "show a profit over time." Now, if a person plays 10 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, that's 500 times 500 hands an hour, that's 250K. Put together 10 years of that, and you are in the vicinity of "for all practical purposes."

So if you play 10 hours a week for 10 years, you will show a profit at +EV games, given perfect play. I think that's a reasonable statement, if you believe the machines are all truly random. Toss in one rigged machine that you spend consistent time on, and kiss that profit goodbye.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks. Again more discussion which has nothing to do with investigating charting wins and losses.

[jbjb]

Just remember. Hitting the deal button at different times will get you different dealt hands.

[Alan Mendelson]

Just remember. Hitting the deal button at different times will get you different dealt hands.

Useless. Useless. Useless.

[quahaug]

The problem is there isn't anything to discuss or investigate. Your premise is an absurdity.

[jbjb]

Call it what you want, TA, trending, etc. In a series of independent trials, which VP is, you cannot now, nor ever predict the future.

[Alan Mendelson]

Technical Analysis as it relates to the stock market is widely followed. If you don't want to consider it for gaming then I understand. Don't participate.

Back when I was in college I took part in various research projects for other students knowing that what they were investigating could not be proven. But it was important to investigate it anyway for two reasons: one, to prove what we already assumed; two, to perhaps discover something we didn't know.

When I was growing up one of my parent's friends was a researcher at Lederle Laboratories -- the pharmaceutical company. He took existing drugs, some of which worked the way they were supposed to and some of which were failures, and he tested them on other illnesses. He was literally taking long shots in the dark. Why take long shots in the dark? Because you'll never know what you will find.

Am I taking a long shot in the dark? Maybe. Is it worth it? Yes. Because I will find out it doesn't work, or it does work, or it might uncover something else.

With that said, in a politically correct way, let me just add this which is not so politically correct: closed minds are stupid minds.

[coach belly]

closed minds are stupid minds.

Yes...some cannot, and will not consider anything beyond what they have been taught....the Sheldon Coopers of this forum.

Invite them to explain what they know in videos...like you did with Singer.

[arcimede$]

Thanks. Again more discussion which has nothing to do with investigating charting wins and losses.

Charting random events is useless. By definition past results tell you nothing about what will happen next.

Are you sure you understand what random means?

BTW, I suggest you chart out 2+2 to see if it always comes to 4. You never know. You may find something no one else has ever considered. Don't let those closed minds stop you.

[redietz]

Yeah, I don't get this.

In the past, Alan has argued that no machines are rigged and that the results are random. Yet here he has decided to check out if the allegedly random results are non-random, which is okay with me, but it undercuts his first position.

So if I think some machines may be rigged occasionally, that is somehow different from thinking there may be non-random patterns in the results?

[jbjb]

Anyone notice he never posted how much he lost on that last trip?

[Alan Mendelson]

Yeah, I don't get this.

In the past, Alan has argued that no machines are rigged and that the results are random.

True. I still believe machines are not rigged and the results are random.

What I want to find out is if there are patterns in random results that can be interpreted the same way we can interpret the patterns in stock market technical analysis. Is that really a horrible thing to do?

I just might find there is no pattern that fits the four stages of Stan Weinstein. But I won't know unless I do it.

Since I am not selling anything here, and since I am not asking anyone to put up any money or to finance my time in front of a video poker machine or standing at a craps table, what is the harm? Why so many protests?

Remember my original post -- I said that Stan Weinstein said to me you could chart anything. I hadn't heard about video poker nor was I a craps player when Stan Weinstein said that to me back in the early 1980s... it might have been 1983 or 84 or 85. So I didn't have the chance then to say "would it apply to casino gambling?" When I knew Stan I had been in a casino only once -- in St Maarten -- in 1977 and I played $2 blackjack and the dealer kept paying me with a $5 chip under a $1 chip so I would tip her.

And in my original post what triggered this investigation is that I was playing a 7/5 Bonus game at Morongo where the meter was staying in a narrow range, then I started to win and the credits would mount and I moved up to $5 and got the quad aces. Coincidental? Perhaps. But in my mind it made me remember Weinstein's four stages and that made me want to investigate further.

Since I am not a member of the flat earth society, I'm willing to take notes as I play. In fact, when I go to Vegas for New Year's with Linda I am going to bring along chart paper and we'll chart the meter and plot the pattern. Maybe it will show something, and maybe it won't.

As Porky would say, "that's all folks." And yes, that's all it is.

And I am asking the rest of you if you wouldn't mind charting yourself because the more data we have the better the research. If you're not interested -- then fine, and don't bother.

I still think results are random, I don't think machines are rigged, but what's the harm in charting results?

[Alan Mendelson]

Anyone notice he never posted how much he lost on that last trip?

Probably more money than you could imagine. Thanks for asking.

[arcimede$]

True. I still believe machines are not rigged and the results are random.

What I want to find out is if there are patterns in random results that can be interpreted the same way we can interpret the patterns in stock market technical analysis. Is that really a horrible thing to do?

...

I still think results are random, I don't think machines are rigged, but what's the harm in charting results?

The harm is that random results will tend to show patterns over the short term. You will find these patterns. However, they are meaningless.

[jbjb]

Probably more money than you could imagine. Thanks for asking.

So much for that mystical "stop loss" you adhere to so much.

[jbjb]

The harm is that random results will tend to show patterns over the short term. You will find these patterns. However, they are meaningless.

Just like the superstitious baccarat players.

[Rob.Singer]

So much for that mystical "stop loss" you adhere to so much.

Consistently is dictated and controlled by discipline and determination. Players either have these traits or they don't.