What about loss goals?

[arcimede$]

I am glad you wrote this because this is the essence of our disagreement.

I don't look at the "big picture." I look at each session. If I can leave the casino each time with a win, even a small win, I will be a happy camper.

I used to look at it "the long way" and kept pounding the keys for those royals. So many of you APs including Frank told me the royals will come and my drought of 170-thousand hands was normal. But it was an expensive drought. I would have been better off during that entire time just taking the smaller wins and going home.

There's nothing wrong with this approach. If it gives you more enjoyment that is great.

And Arc, I don't want "the ER of the game over time." I want better. And leaving with a net win, even a small win, over more sessions will allow me to beat the ER.

Swallow hard now Arc: you can beat the math by playing smarter.

This is where we have the problem. You cannot beat the math but that doesn't mean you might not win. Results form a bell curve. Some playing your method could have results better than the ER, some might even stay ahead for a long time. Others will do worse than the ER, some of those will do much worse. You have no control over whether you will end up in the first group or the second. Sorry, but that is a fact.

[Rob.Singer]

Doesn't matter what you say or how you say it Alan, arci will never admit that playing a session is always its own individual event, unrelated to any that have come before or have yet to come. And when you paint him into a corner as you have done here, he'll always pretend you will never hit the big winners that far more than make up for the infrequent losses that occur along the way. One thing you can count on? He'll forever agree that you will experience many many winning sessions, however, he will never, ever allow his text to admit that you will ever be ahead....unless you say you were playing 10/7 DBP perfectly all the while. Only then are you talking his neurotic language.

Now try asking him if he's going out to dinner tonight alone. His answer will explain why he is in such conflict with all this. You see, he REQUIRES the math be absolutely right at this point, seeing how it just didn't work out for him when he really needed it to.

So goes love....or lack thereof.

[arcimede$]

Doesn't matter what you say or how you say it Alan, arci will never admit that playing a session is always its own individual event, unrelated to any that have come before or have yet to come.

Wrong, of course it is unrelated. In fact, every single hand is unrelated to the last.

And when you paint him into a corner as you have done here, he'll always pretend you will never hit the big winners that far more than make up for the infrequent losses that occur along the way. One thing you can count on? He'll forever agree that you will experience many many winning sessions, however, he will never, ever allow his text to admit that you will ever be ahead....unless you say you were playing 10/7 DBP perfectly all the while. Only then are you talking his neurotic language.

Looks like the dufus earns his name yet again. My last response stated he could be ahead. So much for your prediction.

It is all covered in the math. That's what a bell curve demonstrates. The problem is he cannot do anything that will improve the chances that he will win overall. All he can do is hope he is fortunate.

[redietz]

You can win at a negative expectation game if you take the profits --

I don't think that's what is at work here, Alan. I think if you play a negative expectation game and win, you have super powers. That is at least as likely as that it has anything to do with quitting at various and sundry points. Either you have super powers or you are blessed by God, and we have evidence of a miracle. Either way, there should be movie rights and at least one book to be considered here.

I think there should be a press release going to every media outlet in this country stating that you and Rob have found a way to beat negative expectation games. I'll be more than happy to write it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I think we are reaching a middle ground here. You wrote three basic points:

Point number 1: "You cannot beat the math but that doesn't mean you might not win."

We will forever disagree about the idea of beating the math. That is something that will vary with each individual. If you hit two royals within 40-thou hands than you beat the theoretical about royals. If you don't hit a royal in 200-thou hands you did worse than the theoretical math.

Point number 2: "Results form a bell curve. Some playing your method could have results better than the ER, some might even stay ahead for a long time. Others will do worse than the ER, some of those will do much worse."

Well, I'm not sure it forms a bell curve. It might form a wedge or a scalene triangle.

Point number 3: "You have no control over whether you will end up in the first group or the second. Sorry, but that is a fact."

And point number three is true for me as it is for you. Playing a game with an RNG we have zero control. We can only play each hand the best way possible with the best choice of hold and discard cards. Because we have no control we cannot bank on future hands, or even the cards that we might draw in any hand. The only thing we can control is how much money we put into the machine to start playing and when we decide to stop playing. Using this control at a point where we have made sufficient wins is a good use of this control.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan. I think if you play a negative expectation game and win, you have super powers. That is at least as likely as that it has anything to do with quitting at various and sundry points. Either you have super powers or you are blessed by God, and we have evidence of a miracle. Either way, there should be movie rights and at least one book to be considered here.

I think there should be a press release going to every media outlet in this country stating that you and Rob have found a way to beat negative expectation games. I'll be more than happy to write it.

This is probably the most ridiculous post you have ever made in this discussion. Let me clue you in on a few things:

1. People win at negative expectation games all the time. You never know what that RNG is going to give you.
2. You don't need super powers to get lucky in a casino, or to have the RNG give you a royal, or two, or three.
3. Rob and I haven't figured out a way to beat negative expectation games. What we did was come up with a way to manage our money better so we don't drift off into fantasy-land thinking that every full pay video poker machine is our personal ATM and retirement-income generator.

Frankly, Rob who realizes that you can't beat the casino, and is satisfied leaving with a modest win goal (his is about 5% of his bankroll) has his head screwed on better than the rest of you... and probably me too.

[redietz]

"Rob and I haven't figured out a way to beat negative expectation games." Finally, some clarity and sanity, although it was contradicted by the previous comment, "You can win at a negative expectation game if you take the profits." But I'll take the above post to mean that we have returned to the realm of reality.

Clarity and sanity. Rob realizes you can't beat the casino. We are once again on terra firma.

[Rob.Singer]

Redietz, what is being said is I know and have always realized, even in my later years as an AP, that no player can ever beat the casinos over time at their own game - which is the math. That is why people like Skip Hughes & UNLV math professor extraordinaire Yuri left the city broke, why Dan Paymar had to head for the safety of the New Mexico hills, where he could continue to shamelessly advertise & sell his vp junk without losing all his money on the fpdw machines, why arci needs to lie so much about winning, why Jean Scott is as off-the-wall as a three dollar bill, and why Dancer has to keep up his perceptions and portrayals while never being able to stop working well past an age when successful people retire.

I've already written about beating "negative" games in two books, a website for ten years, and in Gaming Today for nearly eight years. I've talked about it on several TV shows, on ESPN radio, and on numerous other radio stations. Winning the way I've done it can be done by anyone with the understanding and aptitude for it, and with an above average intelligence level. Divine Intervention has nothing to do with it. Taking the maximum advantage of when luck appears does, as does giving yourself the most opportunity by using special plays that deviate from optimal strategy when certain deals come along.

Finally, we are living very well because of it these days. Take note of arci's existence....or how Bob Dancer also required to drag Shirley into casinos all the time because of a bad habit and the inability to just walk away with a win, and now she's suffering too.

So goes love....or lack thereof.

[arcimede$]

Arc, I think we are reaching a middle ground here. You wrote three basic points:

Point number 1: "You cannot beat the math but that doesn't mean you might not win."

We will forever disagree about the idea of beating the math. That is something that will vary with each individual. If you hit two royals within 40-thou hands than you beat the theoretical about royals. If you don't hit a royal in 200-thou hands you did worse than the theoretical math.

Not really, the math for playing a random game deals in probabilities. So, whatever you do really is described by the math. Now, if you end up in the top 5% you would consider yourself doing well. But, you didn't really beat the math. You just beat 95% of the competition.

Point number 2: "Results form a bell curve. Some playing your method could have results better than the ER, some might even stay ahead for a long time. Others will do worse than the ER, some of those will do much worse."

Well, I'm not sure it forms a bell curve. It might form a wedge or a scalene triangle.

The individuals playing do form a bell curve with their overall results. It's not a perfect normal distribution but pretty close. Session results would not form a bell curve.

Point number 3: "You have no control over whether you will end up in the first group or the second. Sorry, but that is a fact."

And point number three is true for me as it is for you. Playing a game with an RNG we have zero control. We can only play each hand the best way possible with the best choice of hold and discard cards. Because we have no control we cannot bank on future hands, or even the cards that we might draw in any hand. The only thing we can control is how much money we put into the machine to start playing and when we decide to stop playing. Using this control at a point where we have made sufficient wins is a good use of this control.

But, that doesn't change your results. Your overall results will approach the ER of the game over time. It does not matter when you cash out. Now, it may matter to you to go home more often as a winner. Setting a low win goal will help, but overall you still end up in the same bell curve as anyone else playing the game. And, you could be anywhere under the curve.

[Rob.Singer]

Results, over time, will not always approach the er of the game over time, as arci claims. This is, however, the type of incomplete theory you will frequently see from old people who lead an angry life and have no option in life any more.

Why is this a bad, make believe statement by arci? Because if it were true, I'd be still working these days trying to make up for all that losing I should have done, while playing all those "negative" games for profit. Instead, you see us living the high life of travel and opportunity, while what is it arci's doing these days as he and the AP missus are in retirement??

The difference is ASTOUNDING. And we went to mass today. You see, we are very thankful for having made the correct choices in our lives.

So goes love....or lack thereof.

[arcimede$]

Results, over time, will not always approach the er of the game over time, as arci claims. This is, however, the type of incomplete theory you will frequently see from old people who lead an angry life and have no option in life any more.

Another comment by the dufus and another lie. At least he's consistent. I wonder how the dufus has any time to play himself. Apparently he follows Dancer, Scott and several other players around every day. I mean, how else would he know exactly how they are doing in addition to knowing everything about me? Wow, he's got to be a busy little bee, doesn't he. Or, or, just maybe he's lying when he claims they all are losing. Yes, that would be consistent as well.

Why is this a bad, make believe statement by arci? Because if it were true, I'd be still working these days trying to make up for all that losing I should have done, while playing all those "negative" games for profit. Instead, you see us living the high life of travel and opportunity, while what is it arci's doing these days as he and the AP missus are in retirement??

We'll all have to remember that the "high life" is living in a trailer in Pahrump ... in case anyone asks.

[Rob.Singer]

More comments only a lonesome, bedridden dreamer could love---if they could love, that is.

[Alan Mendelson]

I have a question about this "bell curve." Where are the reports, the studies, the data that supports the idea that the results of annual play of video poker represents a damn bell curve? From what I see in casinos, if you were to plot the results of players, it would chart like this:

Casino Percentage of Players
Population <1% <3% .................................................. .................................................. ...............100%

big winners X
moderate winners XX
small winners XXX
losers XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

And comments like these do not belong here:

"We'll all have to remember that the "high life" is living in a trailer in Pahrump"
"More comments only a lonesome, bedridden dreamer could love---if they could love, that is"

Stop children.

[arcimede$]

I have a question about this "bell curve." Where are the reports, the studies, the data that supports the idea that the results of annual play of video poker represents a damn bell curve? From what I see in casinos, if you were to plot the results of players, it would chart like this:

Casino Percentage of Players
Population <1% <3% .................................................. .................................................. ...............100%

big winners X
moderate winners XX
small winners XXX
losers XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

You're close, but you leave out a lot of detail with your simple table. The bell curve covers a range of return on the X-axis. Let's say it ranges from 80% return to 120% return in 1% increments. The Y-axis represents the number of people who had that particular return. The center of the graph might be at 95% return with fewer people at other values. The most player results would be 95% with fewer at 96% and 94%. Still fewer would be represented as you moved either way.

Now, note that everyone below 100% are losers and they represent the majority of players. So, your table above is accurate just like the bell curve is accurate. They are just different ways of plotting the same data. There's a reference to a book on wiki that might help you visualize what I'm describing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

The pink color would represent the 95% return players while the yellow might represent those over 100%.

Bell curves can be used to plot many different things. In the example we're talking about it is plotting the return of players who played during a particular time period. Keep in mind that bell curves can be used for lots of things as long as those things have the right distributions.

[Alan Mendelson]

OK Arc, so now you are talking about a range of returns in a bell curve, and that range for example could be 80% return to 120% return. Unfortunately, someone who only gets an 80% return has LOST money. I am more interested in those who have a return of better than 100% as a 100% return is only break even.

So, I continue to search for a >100% return way to play.

[arcimede$]

OK Arc, so now you are talking about a range of returns in a bell curve, and that range for example could be 80% return to 120% return. Unfortunately, someone who only gets an 80% return has LOST money. I am more interested in those who have a return of better than 100% as a 100% return is only break even.

So, I continue to search for a >100% return way to play.

Like I said before. The bell curve is just a way of plotting data graphically. It allows us to visualize the results that can be expected from a group of people when playing VP. Every game has it's own bell curve. For BP the bell curve is shifted to the left of the curve for FPDW.

There is a well known method to have a return of >100%. It's called an edge. It's what every math savvy person uses as their approach.

[Alan Mendelson]

But Arc, Singer will argue that he also has an edge. His edge is that he knows that winning cannot continue, that machines do have losing periods as well as winning periods, and that banking a win and being able to walk away from a machine gives you an edge over the casino's psychology of keeping you there for when the machine turns against you.

[slingshot]

My wife has a mental disability but even she understands that the machines pay out after their hold has been taken and they must pay out to meet legal standards. Then, after they pay out she knows it's time to leave Dodge City.

[Alan Mendelson]

...the machines pay out after their hold has been taken and they must pay out to meet legal standards...

Ummm.... no. A brand new machine could theoretically give a royal flush on the very first hand played. Conversely, that machine might never give a royal flush in the next 20 years of play.

[Rob.Singer]

I just saw a post on vpFREE saying the Palms just put in a bank of ten quarter & 50c FPDW, 10/6 DDBP, & 10/7 DBP machines. It was posted by the admin's wife so it should be accurate.

I guess that's just another tale-telling sign of whether the place fears all those AP's who frequent that place. Oh, she also said it takes double the coin thru to get a point than on the lower paytable games, so people like Dancer and fedomally can't make up how they've been "restricted but allowed to continue playing".