The Sisyphean Gambler

[Rob.Singer]

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

And of course you are right. But if you had asked the question in reverse, any AP would then agree with you. Low variance games create more opportunity for more points and higher slot club status. Why? BECAUSE YOUR BANKROLL LASTS LONGER. No amount of lengthy face-saving babble will ever change that fact.

[Alan Mendelson]

And of course you are right. But if you had asked the question in reverse, any AP would then agree with you. Low variance games create more opportunity for more points and higher slot club status. Why? BECAUSE YOUR BANKROLL LASTS LONGER. No amount of lengthy face-saving babble will ever change that fact.

Indeed you are correct Rob. So far this year I have more than 155-thousand tier points in Total Rewards, but I am showing only a small loss on the year. Yes, my royal in January helped. But the point is clear: with a much smaller loss I am scoring more points, getting more comps, and at Rincon cash back. Plus I still have more money to go after those elusive royals. in other words, I didn't blow it on higher variance games.

I find it ironic that our "AP friends" would advocate playing higher variance games. Even Dancer doesn't. A higher variance game might have the bigger payoffs and even a positive edge, but its that higher variance that can bankrupt you before you hit those big pays.

Unless, of course, you are a magical player who always is rescued by a royal in the nick of time....

[redietz]

I reread this entire thread and saw no evidence of anyone advocating playing higher variance games.

Are any of you actually challenging the assertion that low variance games, given a "normal length" session of two to four hours, have a lower percentage of winning sessions than higher variance games?

The assertion that Dancer (who, as I said, I am not a fan of) doesn't advocate higher variance games is incorrect without references to bankroll and risk of ruin probabilities. Dancer doesn't advocate high variance if it puts you into certain risk of ruin percentages, but if your bankroll is sufficiently large compared to your stakes, he has nothing bad to say about high variance.

[Rob.Singer]

Yes there are arguments for and against high and low varience games. But in the context Alan's putting it, he is right. Could arci also possibly right depending on the circumstances? Yes, but only after he inserted his foot into his mouth. Again.

[arcimede$]

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

That's a different topic. Essentially, that is referring to what you like to call the "long term". That is, your bankroll takes fewer big hits. However, we were talking about individual sessions which I presumed was about 4000 hands plus or minus a couple thou.

As we can see the dufus really knows nothing of the subject matter.

[redietz]

It finally dawned on me that some of the confusion may be due to different definitions of bankroll employed by Alan versus myself and Arci. The idea that low variance enables me to play longer and get royals and such is silly to me because I've never had to stop playing because I didn't have enough money. My bankroll compared to the stakes I'm playing for make it damn near impossible for me to run out of money, so I don't even concern myself with that.

But when you define "bankroll" as some pre-set amount to be lost on a trip, then that changes things. I am unfamiliar with that. If I play for 10 hours, I doubt if I put 10% of my gambling bankroll through a vp machine. So on a really, really terrible day, I might lose 10% of the 10%.

[Alan Mendelson]

...we were talking about individual sessions which I presumed was about 4000 hands plus or minus a couple thou.

Here's where you can get into trouble, Arc. Anything could happen in the short term of 4,000 hands. When it comes to your high variance game, you could make a killing... or you could get killed. Frankly, I'm really surprised you would discuss anything over the course of 4,000 hands or "the short term." I would think that goes against your religion??

[Rob.Singer]

This is fun. Watch arci backtrack, do an emergency walk-around, then require others to define his own words for him. And finally, after more namecalling, comes the inevitable a-humma...a-humma...a-humma--and straight from the corner too!!

[arcimede$]

Here's where you can get into trouble, Arc. Anything could happen in the short term of 4,000 hands. When it comes to your high variance game, you could make a killing... or you could get killed. Frankly, I'm really surprised you would discuss anything over the course of 4,000 hands or "the short term." I would think that goes against your religion??

The subject was sessions because you are the one that thinks setting a win goal (winning a particular session) makes sense. That's the entire reason for the discussion. I've stated many times that all I worry about is winning over time.

You were also the won who asked me how many sessions I won. You also asked my strategy for play. All of these get back to what a person does on a trip to a casino.

I guess this points out yet again what poor reading comprehension some people have.

[Rob.Singer]

My grandson always blames it on someone else too . But a good bounce on Grammy's knee brings him to his senses.

Either a player believes in individual sessions or they don't. Whenever Dancer's asked about it he never acknowledges it and refuses to even comment. But a waffler....now that's a different story. Once you're caught in the middle arci and make more stupid comments, you always end up dangling.

[arcimede$]

Either a player believes in individual sessions or they don't. Whenever Dancer's asked about it he never acknowledges it and refuses to even comment. But a waffler....now that's a different story. Once you're caught in the middle arci and make more stupid comments, you always end up dangling.

"believes in individual sessions" ??????

What kind of nonsense is that? We are all forced to play individual sessions. That's simply a fact of life. It doesn't take belief.

Could you say anything more silly? Well, I suppose so, you've done it over and over.

[Rob.Singer]

I could dig up a thousand posts where you've claimed "it's all one lifelong session until you quit playing for good" but all that would do is force you into more denial, more spin....more lies. And one would think you have more important matters to tend to these days--and I don't mean sneaking out to the Indian casinos either

[arcimede$]

I could dig up a thousand posts where you've claimed "it's all one lifelong session until you quit playing for good" but all that would do is force you into more denial, more spin....more lies. And one would think you have more important matters to tend to these days--and I don't mean sneaking out to the Indian casinos either

Life is one long logical session. It still requires playing individual physical sessions. Only a dufus wouldn't understand the difference.

[Rob.Singer]

.....arci, better quit while you're behind, my friend. You dig that hole too deep, you may never be able to get out of it again. And you wouldnt't know WHAT to do with yourself if you couldnt't....no, not that! Couldnt't sit at another vp machine again.

[arcimede$]

.....arci, better quit while you're behind, my friend. You dig that hole too deep, you may never be able to get out of it again. And you wouldnt't know WHAT to do with yourself if you couldnt't....no, not that! Couldnt't sit at another vp machine again.

Translation: The dufus realizes what a complete dufus he is ... so, better try and change the subject before anyone figures it out.

[Rob.Singer]

What? More namecalling!?

And you know what THAT means....

Oh, and BTW.....a new term: LOGICAL SESSION?, A-HA HA HA HA HA HA! ROTFLMAO!! Have you not yet figured out what it is I do to you!?

[arcimede$]

Funny, I suspect every single person reading this forum understands the concept of a logical session. The fact you don't is why you are a dufus.

[Alan Mendelson]

Funny, I suspect every single person reading this forum understands the concept of a logical session. The fact you don't is why you are a dufus.

First time I ever saw the phrase "logical session" so please explain what it is.

In all of the other discussions the claims by the APs were that there is only one life-long session of video poker so it was foolish to even consider short term play.

To be fair to all sides: there are so many different definitions we need a dictionary and rule book for some of these discussions, as well as an index of what has been said before and where. It's enough to make people dizzy. But, we are seeing some new terminology here that was not used before. So, I hope those folks over at LVA realize they are missing out on a lot of new info here. LOL

[Vegas Vic]

First time I ever saw the phrase "logical session" so please explain what it is.

In all of the other discussions the claims by the APs were that there is only one life-long session of video poker so it was foolish to even consider short term play.

To be fair to all sides: there are so many different definitions we need a dictionary and rule book for some of these discussions, as well as an index of what has been said before and where. It's enough to make people dizzy. But, we are seeing some new terminology here that was not used before. So, I hope those folks over at LVA realize they are missing out on a lot of new info here. LOL

Both protagonists in this VP drama appear to be making things up as they go along. So, to join in, I'll add something new to the terminology to succinctly describe this drama: silly-sad.

[Alan Mendelson]

Both protagonists in this VP drama appear to be making things up as they go along. So, to join in, I'll add something new to the terminology to succinctly describe this drama: silly-sad.

Vegas Vic, I'm going to disagree with you. I think this is a very good discussion. I think it would be better without the hits below the belt, and without the name calling, and without the personal snide remarks. But other than the childishness, it is a good discussion.