The Sisyphean Gambler

[arcimede$]

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

How many times do I have to say it makes no difference? It neither helps nor hurts.

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.

You can play with it all you like but it won't change anything. A $125 win goal and $250 loss limit yields 47% sessions wins with a return of 99.09%. My program does not have the ability to change things on the fly (but it could be added).

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."

The problem is that darn thing called randomness. You can't force the machines to give you wins.

[Alan Mendelson]

Ahhh... "The problem is that darn thing called randomness. You can't force the machines to give you wins."

This is why people buy homeowners insurance, health insurance, car insurance, etc. You can't depend on a royal flush. So why not take the money (profits) when you have them?

If "it makes no difference? It neither helps nor hurts" then why keep taking good money (your wins) and putting it back into the machine and into the great unknown (or, maybe a 99.1% or better chance of returning, depending on the game you play)?

Really, Singer isn't that crazy.

[arcimede$]

Ahhh... "The problem is that darn thing called randomness. You can't force the machines to give you wins."

This is why people buy homeowners insurance, health insurance, car insurance, etc. You can't depend on a royal flush. So why not take the money (profits) when you have them?

As I've said many times before it makes no difference. It's kind of like switching machines or bringing a good luck charm. If it makes you feel better then do it. Just don't think it makes a difference. That's all I've been saying.

If "it makes no difference? It neither helps nor hurts" then why keep taking good money (your wins) and putting it back into the machine and into the great unknown (or, maybe a 99.1% or better chance of returning, depending on the game you play)?

Really, Singer isn't that crazy.

I never said he was crazy. He's just a dufus.

My key point has always been that the only thing that makes a difference is playing machines that have a better return. If you start thinking you can beat the machines by when you start and stop it's easy to fool yourself.

It might actually work for awhile and if you don't understand the math you might think you're on to something. You start playing more and more and when you hit the skids you think it will eventually turn around. That's how people develop gambling problems.

I've said many time before that I don't care how anyone plays. I simply want people to understand the reality of VP play. That way they can make their decisions with the proper knowledge.

The dufus continues to spew nonsense. Which is better ... a person who knows the truth or a person who is led down the path of lies?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, how ironic that YOU say this: "You start playing more and more and when you hit the skids you think it will eventually turn around." Because that is exactly what long term strategy says. It says that it will all even out in the end, and that over the long term a game will return what the math says it will return. How silly it is for you to use that. Care to restate?

Singer's idea about cashing out "wins" is the ONLY way to beat the long term math of video poker -- whether the long term of any game is for 99.1% or 100.17%.

[redietz]

At the beginning of the film, "The Warriors," Cyrus tells gangs in the park that "It's ALL OUR TURF."

Alan, the point Cyrus would make here is that "It's ALL LONG TERM." What's short term to you, non-mathematically speaking, is long term to a fruit fly. Saying that you're playing short term doesn't magically extract you from the long term. Saying you're playing long term doesn't magically rescue you from the short term. Unless you use mathematical definitions to pin things down, " long term" and "short term" are just words defining the same thing. The math doesn't change; it's not another universe.

[Alan Mendelson]

I disagree. I think that your own short term spurts at video poker can differ significantly from the long term. Heck, I proved that last year, when I went through 170-thousand hands without a royal. And three weeks ago Jason also proved it when he hit four royals in one weekend.

No, it's not all long term. One of the forum members sent me a private message about how he had a drought of 500-thousand hands without a royal. A lot of good the "long term" did him!

If you say we are all playing "short term" I agree. And you should maximize your short term.

edited to add: redietz you also bring up the math: The math doesn't change; it's not another universe.

True, the math doesnt change, but your results might never be the same as the math. Why preach the math when the math may not apply to your own personal results? When I go into a casino I don't play for the "math" of all video poker players. I play for my personal results.

I raised this once before: if I am to consider my play part of the overall math, then I should share in the wins and the losses of all other players, and all other players should share in mine. Stop with the math of the universe. I am concerned with one thing and one thing only: AM I WINNING.

[arcimede$]

Arc, how ironic that YOU say this: "You start playing more and more and when you hit the skids you think it will eventually turn around." Because that is exactly what long term strategy says. It says that it will all even out in the end, and that over the long term a game will return what the math says it will return. How silly it is for you to use that. Care to restate?

Silly strawman. There is no such thing as "long term strategy". That is an invention of people who don't understand the math. You know, like the dufus. Expert strategy gives you the best average return on EVERY hand. It is the epitome of a short term strategy. What is shorter than a single hand?

Singer's idea about cashing out "wins" is the ONLY way to beat the long term math of video poker -- whether the long term of any game is for 99.1% or 100.17%.

Nonsense.

[arcimede$]

I think that your own short term spurts at video poker can differ significantly from the long term. Heck, I proved that last year, when I went through 170-thousand hands without a royal. And three weeks ago Jason also proved it when he hit four royals in one weekend.

No, it's not all long term. One of the forum members sent me a private message about how he had a drought of 500-thousand hands without a royal. A lot of good the "long term" did him!

If you say we are all playing "short term" I agree. And you should maximize your short term.

One problem. There is no way to "maximize" your results other than making the best play on every hand. No betting strategy can change your expectations. That leaves expert play. You know, what advantage players do.

edited to add: redietz you also bring up the math: The math doesn't change; it's not another universe.

True, the math doesnt change, but your results might never be the same as the math. Why preach the math when the math may not apply to your own personal results? When I go into a casino I don't play for the "math" of all video poker players. I play for my personal results.

I raised this once before: if I am to consider my play part of the overall math, then I should share in the wins and the losses of all other players, and all other players should share in mine. Stop with the math of the universe. I am concerned with one thing and one thing only: AM I WINNING.

The problem is you can't avoid the math. When you play you are still dealing with the math of the game. It's inherent in the actual physical process of playing. You can wish and hope all you want. It won't make quads or RFs occur any more often. You will still end up with results that are described by the math. The only question is whether you choose to ignore that reality and live in a fantasy world. It's always your choice.

[Rob.Singer]

That AP genius Elliott Fromm uses "long term strategy" in his articles quite often So arci, are you calling HIM a dufus too?

Alan, he will never understand the logic you're trying to educate him with, because he will never comprehend that the way humans play is not a carbon copy of what he reads in his math books. To arci, nothing is smarter than the math which means there cannot possibly be anyone smarter than he. But then along came Rob Singer, who swept away his fantasies overnight, and because RS has continuously proven to have more intelligence than arci--as well as far more respect for women by taking care of them in their time of need--you have the resulting namecalling....which I kinda like, because it's like he's removing a thorn every time he says it!

[Alan Mendelson]

Oh pleeeez Arc.... all of the video poker books describe the strategy and the return as "over the long term." Don't play word games with me.

Edited to add: I started another thread about Rincon returning some of the full pay games that were removed, but the best you'll find there now for Jacks or Better is 8/5. And 8/5 Bonus is back. So why bother playing 8/5 Jacks. Someone should tell Rincon that they can save the licensing fees on their Jacks games now.

By the way, I went into the casino today with $470 free play. Sat down at the 8/5 Aces and Faces and ran the free play through, and cashed out $545 leaving a full house on the machine as my last play. I pulled myself out of the chair, and it was tough to do it.

Went to Pechanga to play $50 of weekly free play, and all of the bonus games were filled so I sat down at a $1 double double bonus. Cashed out $40.

Went home. It really feels good to walk out of a casino with THEIR money. Try it sometime, guys.

[redietz]

Alan,

How can you possibly know, according to your way of thinking, where "short term strategy" ends and "long term strategy" begins? More importantly, what evidence would convince you that you are wrong? Do you weight personal experience over simulator results? If so, why? How many simulations would it take to convince you that you are wrong? Or would no number be enough? If so, then we are dealing with faith, which is in the realm of religion, and debating someone's religion is not something on which I care to waste my time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz, here you go again asking theoretical questions and asking about simulations.... It's tiring. Let's be "logical" for a minute. No one is at the machine for the long term. Sound familiar? You don't get a royal EVERY TIME you are dealt four to the royal, do you? Therefore your short term play cannot match the long term play. Now let me answer your questions:

"How can you possibly know, according to your way of thinking, where "short term strategy" ends and "long term strategy" begins?" I don't, and it doesn't matter. What I care about is putting winners into my pocket and taking them home. If I have reached a point where I am winning and I don't want to risk losing it back, I leave. What's wrong with that?

"More importantly, what evidence would convince you that you are wrong? Do you weight personal experience over simulator results? If so, why?" Is it wrong to leave with a profit? Is there anything wrong with leaving with a profit? Is there something wrong with setting a win goal of 5% or 10% or 20% and saying "this has been a good day" and leave? What point are you trying to make, redietz?

"How many simulations would it take to convince you that you are wrong? Or would no number be enough?" Simulate what? What we are talking about here is deciding when to stop playing. This becomes a personal choice. Do you set a loss limit for each session or do you keep playing until you hit the royal that digs you out of a hole? Do you hit a royal and leave and enjoy the win or do you keep playing after the royal because your video poker life is just one continuous session? Do you hit quads on a $1 Bonus game for $125 after putting just $100 in the machine and say "I just made a 25% profit and that's enough for today" or do you say "I might as well keep playing now because in the long term I'm going to lose it back to the casino anyway since its a game with a 99.17% return"?

This has never been a discussion about any kind of math. No one is debating the odds of draws, the number of aces in a deck, the chance of drawing a royal when dealt four to the royal. This is a discussion about what makes for an enjoyable trip... for those of us who don't want to sit at a machine for the long term to see the long term results.

Frankly, I think anyone who says you shouldn't quit when you're ahead either works for the casino or is trying to justify being addicted to the game.

[arcimede$]

Oh pleeeez Arc.... all of the video poker books describe the strategy and the return as "over the long term." Don't play word games with me.

All that is meant by "over the long term" is that one's results will trend toward the expectation of the game. That is a different part of the puzzle and it doesn't just apply to expert play. It applies to any way you choose to play. That is simply another way of saying the math determines your results and you can't avoid it no mater what you do.

It does not mean that a person has to play a long time to win. That is the interpretation that you and others (especially the dufus) try to associate with the words "long term". And, that is completely wrong. As I stated above. Expert play is truly a short term strategy. It applies to single hands.

Edited to add: I started another thread about Rincon returning some of the full pay games that were removed, but the best you'll find there now for Jacks or Better is 8/5. And 8/5 Bonus is back. So why bother playing 8/5 Jacks. Someone should tell Rincon that they can save the licensing fees on their Jacks games now.

By the way, I went into the casino today with $470 free play. Sat down at the 8/5 Aces and Faces and ran the free play through, and cashed out $545 leaving a full house on the machine as my last play. I pulled myself out of the chair, and it was tough to do it.

Strange. I put my freeplay through a machine every time I play and leave when it is done. I never find it tough to do because I can only play my freeplay on a 98% return game. I immediately return to my 100.28% OEJs and continue playing.

Went to Pechanga to play $50 of weekly free play, and all of the bonus games were filled so I sat down at a $1 double double bonus. Cashed out $40.

Went home. It really feels good to walk out of a casino with THEIR money. Try it sometime, guys.

I do it quite often (about 45% of the time) and I don't have to do anything but play my normal 6-7 hours and leave when I get tired. Here's a quote you might want to get your head around:

"Now, in one sense, a bias toward optimism is obviously bad, since it generates false beliefs — like the belief that we are in control, and not the playthings of luck."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/bo...pagewanted=all

[arcimede$]

Notice how Alan continues to go back to claiming ... "I think anyone who says you shouldn't quit when you're ahead either works for the casino or is trying to justify being addicted to the game."

But no one has said this. This is a silly strawman that Alan has erected. No one claims you "shouldn't quit when you're ahead". We simply point out it will make no difference in your results over time.

So, the real question is why would Alan continue to repeat this nonsense. Is he losing it?

[Alan Mendelson]

arc, this is BS: It does not mean that a person has to play a long time to win. That is the interpretation that you and others (especially the dufus) try to associate with the words "long term". No one ever said that. No, but the longer you play at a game with a 99.1% return, the closer you will be to a 99.1% return. So why play long term for a 99.1% return? Why not pocket wins so you will beat the 99.1%?? You don't get it, do you?

Ummm.... you've got to explain this one to me: "Strange. I put my freeplay through a machine every time I play and leave when it is done. I never find it tough to do because I can only play my freeplay on a 98% return game. I immediately return to my 100.28% OEJs and continue playing." Why don't you use your free play on your OEJs game?? And why was it tough to pull myself away? Because the machine was hitting. Greed told me to stay. Rational thinking made me leave with the profit I had. By the way, what is the percentage return of $585 on free play?

And finally Arc, you wrote: "No one claims you "shouldn't quit when you're ahead". We simply point out it will make no difference in your results over time." Make up your mind. The point of the discussion is do you win more quitting when ahead at given sessions or not? Think of it this way: if you quit every session when you are ahead (and there is evidence that just about every player is ahead at some point) then you will only have winners, and a net win. You Arc, admit to winning -- what is it -- three out of ten sessions? Yet, you claim to be an overall net winner? To do this, you must also have a version of the "quit when ahead, limit your losses" strategy. You must have a loss limit, and it must be offset by your wins. If you didn't have this accounting and if it didn't work you would be in a deep hole.

And am I losing it? yes, I've lost patience with your silly arguments about something as simple and rational as quitting when ahead and the benefits it presents to everyone but an addict or the casino.

[arcimede$]

arc, this is BS: It does not mean that a person has to play a long time to win. That is the interpretation that you and others (especially the dufus) try to associate with the words "long term". No one ever said that. No, but the longer you play at a game with a 99.1% return, the closer you will be to a 99.1% return. So why play long term for a 99.1% return? Why not pocket wins so you will beat the 99.1%?? You don't get it, do you?

I have repeatedly stated that the less a person plays a negative game the better. I would never play long term (or short term) on a negative game. I've told you before than anything that gets a person to quit playing a negative game is a good thing. My point has been and still is ... it makes no difference WHEN you quit. The best choice is to never play.

Ummm.... you've got to explain this one to me: "Strange. I put my freeplay through a machine every time I play and leave when it is done. I never find it tough to do because I can only play my freeplay on a 98% return game. I immediately return to my 100.28% OEJs and continue playing." Why don't you use your free play on your OEJs game??

Because the machines are old and don't support the freeplay system. I play the best game available where I am able to play my freeplay.

And finally Arc, you wrote: "No one claims you "shouldn't quit when you're ahead". We simply point out it will make no difference in your results over time." Make up your mind. The point of the discussion is do you win more quitting when ahead at given sessions or not? Think of it this way: if you quit every session when you are ahead (and there is evidence that just about every player is ahead at some point) then you will only have winners, and a net win.

As my simulation demonstrates ... you don't get ahead in every session. If it were true then you need to go back and think about my previous example. You know, if a person really does ALWAYS get ahead then they should eventually get ahead from the point where you want to leave with a win. Believing a person always gets ahead and also believing a person will lose if they keep playing is called cognitive dissonance. They can't both be true.

You Arc, admit to winning -- what is it -- three out of ten sessions? Yet, you claim to be an overall net winner? To do this, you must also have a version of the "quit when ahead, limit your losses" strategy. You must have a loss limit, and it must be offset by your wins. If you didn't have this accounting and if it didn't work you would be in a deep hole.

I win about 40% of my sessions. My average win is greater than my average loss.

And am I losing it? yes, I've lost patience with your silly arguments about something as simple and rational as quitting when ahead and the benefits it presents to everyone but an addict or the casino.

Your arguments are anything but rational. They are based on irrational assumptions which I have shown you are false. I've presented you with all the facts you need to understand that the argument for quitting while ahead is based only on superstition and not facts. The time a person quits cannot affect their long term return.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc writes: "The time a person quits cannot affect their long term return." Unbelievable.

[arcimede$]

Arc writes: "The time a person quits cannot affect their long term return." Unbelievable.

No, it is simple math. The key to my statement above is I used "return" and not "results". So, a person may lose less money (results) simply because they play fewer hands. However, their "return" will still trend towards the expected return of the game over time. The exact same holds true if a player quits after X number of hands whether they are ahead or behind. When you quit makes no difference in your return percentage over time.

[redietz]

For the record, folks, I certainly do not work for any casino, and I'm not sure what game I'm addicted to, but it sure isn't video poker. I probably play 40 hours a year. I'm ahead lifetime, but not enough for a new auto.

I am baffled at the idea that one can turn a negative game into a positive by knowing when to quit each session. I mean, casinos have been around a long, long time. Quitting when ahead is a lot simpler to learn than memorizing strategy cards for each game, so I think some people would have figured it out -- if it worked.

Playing fewer hands at a negative game is a great idea and I support it wholeheartedly -- if quitting when ahead leads to fewer hands played at a negative game, I endorse it completely. But the concept of quitting-when-ahead magic that may turn negative into positive is just silly.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, now you can probably understand why my Gaming Today column rattled these confused souls for nearly 8 years, and why whenever I challenged the great AP & self-proclaimed actuary Fezzik, Dancer, fedomally, and even the wizard -- and offered Frank the opportunity to witness its operation -- that I could beat the so called "negative" games I used in my strategy at least 7 out of ten sessions as well as be ahead at least $15,000, they all suddenly ran and hid away once they realized real money and not their silly theories was to be involved.

It's really the same here in your discussion. You see arci continue his namecalling and redietz being uncharacteristically aloof as they try in vain to counter your dosage of simple common sense when talking about the advantages of continuously quitting when ahead at certain points. It's the same 'ol tune with these people: "no way you can be ahead playing -ev games over time". Again, you can see why my being ahead over $984,000 over around 11 years gets them flustered. It just doesn't fit into their theory factory.