The Sisyphean Gambler

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc and Redietz both of you missed the point about raising your stop-loss when you are winning.

I raise my stop-loss if, by luck, I sit down and quickly hit quads. It happened once where I sat down and in a few hands hit quad aces on a $1 DDB which paid $800 which was far and above my win goal, so I raised my stop loss and went on to play a $5 game and won much more. However, I will not deny that I have given back more than I have ever won. Somehow, I am the only person on this forum who admits to losing. How can that be? Am I the one who keep the casinos open -- all by myself?

Rob wins, Arc wins. redietz wins. And I lose? Gosh gee wowza!!

Anyway... You guys believe that the math will insure your wins, yet the math does not insure YOUR wins. The math insures the machine and the casino. If we cannot agree on that there is nothing else to discuss. Keep playing your way. I'll keep playing my way. I would be very happy leaving a casino each time with a $150 or $200 win. Heck, a $200 win five days a week is a thousand dollars a week-- or a thousand dollars after five day trips. That's my goal now. And if I get lucky and make it a $250 win, so much the better.

[arcimede$]

Arc and Redietz both of you missed the point about raising your stop-loss when you are winning.

I raise my stop-loss if, by luck, I sit down and quickly hit quads. It happened once where I sat down and in a few hands hit quad aces on a $1 DDB which paid $800 which was far and above my win goal, so I raised my stop loss and went on to play a $5 game and won much more. However, I will not deny that I have given back more than I have ever won. Somehow, I am the only person on this forum who admits to losing. How can that be? Am I the one who keep the casinos open -- all by myself?

Rob wins, Arc wins. redietz wins. And I lose? Gosh gee wowza!!

I've told you that I only win 40-50% of the time. Hence, I lose more often than I win. I lost the last time I played. In fact, I lost almost everything I had won with the RF on the previous trip. That's the way it goes with high variance games. I've had a RF and lost it all before I left. I've also had a second RF several times.

Alan, you're like a stuck record. You can't forget about the times you've lost a big win. Yes, it happens, but losing the big win next time you play (like I just did) is exactly as likely. Once you understand the fact that when you quit has no effect on your long term results you can relax and play when you want to play, not according to some worthless rumor. The time you've spent wishing and hoping for some way to overcome a negative game would be better spent trying to figure out how to play only when you have an edge.

Anyway... You guys believe that the math will insure your wins, yet the math does not insure YOUR wins. The math insures the machine and the casino. If we cannot agree on that there is nothing else to discuss. Keep playing your way. I'll keep playing my way. I would be very happy leaving a casino each time with a $150 or $200 win. Heck, a $200 win five days a week is a thousand dollars a week-- or a thousand dollars after five day trips. That's my goal now. And if I get lucky and make it a $250 win, so much the better.

Actually, the math does insure our wins over time on positive games. The math also insures the casino will win as well. It's the same math. Since very few players know how to play with an edge, the casino ends up with an edge overall. However, the few of us that can find an edge take away a small part of their profits.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: "I've told you that I only win 40-50% of the time. Hence, I lose more often than I win." I'm a bit confused. I thought you lose 30% of the time and win 70%? That's too much of a percentage swing for me, I'd rather finish ahead 90% of the time or better even if they are small wins. Then my entertainment value would be increased. And a tight loss limit would mean I wouldn't ruin the fun with large losses. Unlike you Arc, I would not consider giving back a royal quickly as "due course" for gambling.

[arcimede$]

Arc wrote: "I've told you that I only win 40-50% of the time. Hence, I lose more often than I win." I'm a bit confused. I thought you lose 30% of the time and win 70%? That's too much of a percentage swing for me, I'd rather finish ahead 90% of the time or better even if they are small wins. Then my entertainment value would be increased. And a tight loss limit would mean I wouldn't ruin the fun with large losses. Unlike you Arc, I would not consider giving back a royal quickly as "due course" for gambling.

Yes, you are confused. You must be thinking of last year when I started out the year winning only 30% of my sessions. You even got the win/loss part wrong.

If you want to win more sessions then a progression is one mechanism. You won't win any more money, but you will win more sessions. The same holds true by setting small win goals. Again, you will win more often as I showed you a few days ago. However, you have to be prepared to play less than 5 minutes if you hit the win goal quickly.

None of that changes your probable results over any fixed number of hands.

[Rob.Singer]

It's always "the other guy" who gets things wrong when dealing with a pathological liar. Thing is, these are really gotchas served deservedly upon the pl.

[Vegas Vic]

I've told you that I only win 40-50% of the time. Hence, I lose more often than I win. I lost the last time I played. In fact, I lost almost everything I had won with the RF on the previous trip. That's the way it goes with high variance games. I've had a RF and lost it all before I left. I've also had a second RF several times.

On page 14, #147, you said "I win more than I lose."

[Rob.Singer]

Doesn't matter Vic. On other forums thru the years he's always claimed to lose 60% - 70% of the time....and win! Now he's changed that story because it doesn't fit in too well with the discussion here. And if you try to pin him down with him saying he wins more than he loses when clearly talking about casino visits, he'll change it around to mean "money" instead of visits. It's something a pathological liar does all the time. That's why he would always SAY he'd face me, then at the last minute escape out the back door to what he considers safety.

Then one would have to wonder about his babble about when he stops playing for a session. He claims this and that, but if you had the problems awaiting you at home and you were the cause of them as he is, would you even BE in a casino in the first place?

So goes love.....going.....going....GONE! John Edwards ain't got nothin' on this guy!

[arcimede$]

On page 14, #147, you said "I win more than I lose."

Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant I win more in the sessions where I come out a winner than I lose in my losing sessions. Therefore, even though I lose more sessions I win overall. Is that clearer?

[arcimede$]

Doesn't matter Vic. On other forums thru the years he's always claimed to lose 60% - 70% of the time....and win! Now he's changed that story because it doesn't fit in too well with the discussion here. And if you try to pin him down with him saying he wins more than he loses when clearly talking about casino visits, he'll change it around to mean "money" instead of visits.

Simple explanation. When in LV I played a lot of FPDW, BP and JOB progressives. Since those games have a lower variance a person will lose more sessions. For anyone with even a minimal knowledge of VP math this is a no brainer. Not surprising the dufus can't figure it out.

It's something a pathological liar does all the time. That's why he would always SAY he'd face me, then at the last minute escape out the back door to what he considers safety.

Nice projection followed by a lie. Did I mention this guy is a dufus.

[Alan Mendelson]

When in LV I played a lot of FPDW, BP and JOB progressives. Since those games have a lower variance a person will lose more sessions.

Well, I admit I learn something new every day. I thought that a game with a lower variance would allow you to have more winning sessions. But now I learn that games with a lower variance means you will have more losing sessions.

[Rob.Singer]

You're right Alan, but remember he is a conflicted and flustered individual trying to live a virtual life on the Internet. Give him some slack on his answers when he goofs up. I'll take care of his lies.

[arcimede$]

Well, I admit I learn something new every day. I thought that a game with a lower variance would allow you to have more winning sessions. But now I learn that games with a lower variance means you will have more losing sessions.

You just need to think about it a little. Low variance games pay back more in the common hands like two pair. That cuts down your losses, but since the quads pay less it's difficult to actually get ahead. With high variance games all you need is a few of good quads and you have a good chance to winning a session.

As a result low variance games result in small losses but more of them. High variance games give you a few more wins but the losses are more severe.

For example, I mentioned winning 43% of the time playing 4000 hands of OEJs which has a variance of around 40. For BP with a variance around 20 you should win abut 30% of your sessions.

[arcimede$]

You're right Alan, but remember he is a conflicted and flustered individual trying to live a virtual life on the Internet. Give him some slack on his answers when he goofs up. I'll take care of his lies.

The dufus shows us once again how he earned his named. He can't even get the simple things right.

[Alan Mendelson]

Im really surprised. All of the books Ive read early on suggested low variance games such as Jacks or Better to give you a better shot at winning. After all with 9/6 JOB the house edge is extremely low. With some DW games the player even has the edge. Now you're telling me that I should have started on high variance games such as Royal Aces Bonus?

[arcimede$]

Im really surprised. All of the books Ive read early on suggested low variance games such as Jacks or Better to give you a better shot at winning. After all with 9/6 JOB the house edge is extremely low. With some DW games the player even has the edge. Now you're telling me that I should have started on high variance games such as Royal Aces Bonus?

There's two factors at play. The variance and the ER. Assuming an equal ER then, in general, the higher the variance the better the chance of winning a session. However, comparing a 99.5% return game like JOB with a low return, high variance game you might actually do better with JOB.

For example, I just compared BP with Aces and Eights. They are almost identical variance but A/8 pays around 99.8% instead of 99.2%. That difference raises the session win percentage from 30->35%.

Also, there are extremes for variance that will change things. For example, a game that only pays on a RF would have an extremely high variance even though it could return 100%. However, since a RF only strategy yields a RF only 1 in around 24K hands you would only win 1 out of 6 sessions at most (4000 hand sessions).

What I'm giving you is basically a rule of thumb that applies to most VP games.

[Rob.Singer]

This is priceless....covering his tracks so as not to let the record read any other way than how he wants others to perceive it. Just admit you were wrong arci as we know you are, and stop trying to do the variance/ER jig for Alan when you have no way out. A thousand studdered words changes nothing.

[arcimede$]

You've got to love the projection ...

"Just admit you were wrong" ... yes, dufus you were wrong.

"A thousand studdered words changes nothing." ... yes, no matter how much you try you still end up looking like a dufus.

[redietz]

As I've always understood it, lower variance games usually lead to a higher percentage of session losses because the big non-royal hands don't return as much, so you are more likely to not win any given session. The low-variance-game session losses, however, are smaller than the average session losses of higher variance games. This has always seemed pretty clear-cut to me. Why does this seem confusing? This is what I'd expect to occur.

[Alan Mendelson]

The way I read it years ago the low variance games keep you playing longer so you can win the royals and the quads.

[Rob.Singer]

You've got to love the projection ...

"Just admit you were wrong" ... yes, dufus you were wrong.

"A thousand studdered words changes nothing." ... yes, no matter how much you try you still end up looking like a dufus.

What's the matter my friend....a master debater ALWAYS creates a new, decisive angle for the opponent to do what he can in order to knock the other party off his game. Parrotting what took one apart simply demonstrates unending frustration in an effort to make it all just go away.

Remember as you lie down tonight: so goes love....or lack thereof.