The Sisyphean Gambler

[Alan Mendelson]

On another website, someone who is very respected in gaming has a signature line that goes something like this:

it doesnt matter if you win or lose, it matters if you had a good bet.

Well, Arc, that sounds a lot like you. And to be honest, I think that kind of thinking can send you to the poor house real fast. The bottom line and the only bottom line is DID YOU WIN. Sorry, but I just had to say it.

So, sticking around and losing at a positive edge game is absolutely absurd if your goal is to play your hours and you shrug off the loss as being "expected." With thinking like that I "expect" you to go broke.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, I'm not reading all the go-between because you forget, I've watched him post make believe scenarios on forums for years that he uses as his "experiences" in order to talk not only others--but himself into believing that the math works for vp players on the machines. He has been caught so many times in his own lies it stopped being funny long ago. He has no other life but on the Internet and you know it, yet he found some new gullibles here who allow him to play pretend so he made up stories of sneaking out to play golf & bowling to extraordinairy levels even, for the impression and the praise.

But please, keep his fantasies alive while we live the real life of retirement and I occasionally look at how you're being played. That's what he detested as you know....the fact that as a retired very successful vp player, I'm able first to not plan trips around how much I can play machines, and secondly because his past actions will never allow him to enjoy what,we are now enjoying.

And I'll drink to that!

[arcimede$]

On another website, someone who is very respected in gaming has a signature line that goes something like this:

it doesnt matter if you win or lose, it matters if you had a good bet.

Well, Arc, that sounds a lot like you. And to be honest, I think that kind of thinking can send you to the poor house real fast. The bottom line and the only bottom line is DID YOU WIN. Sorry, but I just had to say it.

So, sticking around and losing at a positive edge game is absolutely absurd if your goal is to play your hours and you shrug off the loss as being "expected." With thinking like that I "expect" you to go broke.

This is what I call "simple" thinking. You could make the exact same statement about a player on a 95% return game vs. a 105% return game. It ignores the reality of the games themselves. If you want to truly understand why your view is wrong you have to quit ignoring the facts I present you. You have to allow yourself to understand what's going on at a deeper level. Until then, you will continue to fall back on your "simple" view. And, you will probably continue to lose money every year.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I'm not reading all the go-between because you forget, I've watched him post make believe scenarios on forums for years that he uses as his "experiences" in order to talk not only others--but himself into believing that the math works for vp players on the machines. He has been caught so many times in his own lies it stopped being funny long ago. He has no other life but on the Internet and you know it, yet he found some new gullibles here who allow him to play pretend so he made up stories of sneaking out to play golf & bowling to extraordinairy levels even, for the impression and the praise.

More projection. Keep it up dufus, your self-descriptive words say it all.

Now for some reality, click on this link and put in my last name:

http://www.semnusbc.com/search_achiev/find.php

[Alan Mendelson]

If you want to truly understand why your view is wrong you have to quit ignoring the facts I present you. You have to allow yourself to understand what's going on at a deeper level. Until then, you will continue to fall back on your "simple" view. And, you will probably continue to lose money every year.

Arc, when that oddity game of yours with the super pay table disappears, will you still be a winner? It appears that your entire strategy, experience of winning, and ability to win comes from that OEJs game with a pay table that was grandfathered in and cannot be removed?

What would you do in Vegas? Sit by the pool because there isn't a positive game like it?

I think for a moment you should step away from your OEJ machine and consider a strategy for the "other games" that the rest of us are playing. Perhaps if you were playing mere mortal 9/6 Jacks or 8/5 Bonus or 9/6 DDB you would start to recognize the value of what Rob is preaching -- and it's a darn good sermon, too.

[redietz]

I guess that comment is the crux of it. Personally, if I do not have an edge, I don't play. If I'm stuck with 9/6 JOB, and comps/cashback push that into positive territory, or damn close, I'll play enough to maintain some small rating for discounts on food/rooms and such, but that's it. It's a small thing, but sometimes having a minimal rating will get you the 25-30% off buffets and an occasional offer for vp or slot tournaments. Banging away on games that suck more than half a percent from you each go-round, however, is not my idea of a good time.

If all football went to -120, I'd stop playing. If all blackjack were 6/5, I wouldn't play. It's not my job to pay for light bulbs.

[arcimede$]

Arc, when that oddity game of yours with the super pay table disappears, will you still be a winner? It appears that your entire strategy, experience of winning, and ability to win comes from that OEJs game with a pay table that was grandfathered in and cannot be removed?

What would you do in Vegas? Sit by the pool because there isn't a positive game like it?

I think for a moment you should step away from your OEJ machine and consider a strategy for the "other games" that the rest of us are playing. Perhaps if you were playing mere mortal 9/6 Jacks or 8/5 Bonus or 9/6 DDB you would start to recognize the value of what Rob is preaching -- and it's a darn good sermon, too.

I've heard they are taking the machines out sometime this year. They are quite old. At that time I will quit playing.

As I've mentioned previously the best time to quit when playing negative games is right before your first hand.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've heard they are taking the machines out sometime this year. They are quite old. At that time I will quit playing.

As I've mentioned previously the best time to quit when playing negative games is right before your first hand.

Very good Arc, welcome to the real world, where the rest of us play... and for fun. And when you play for fun, and you're not married to any silly math demons that say cashing out makes no sense, Rob's strategy for setting win goals makes a whole lot of sense, and maybe some dollars too.

His progressive betting structure with a modest win goal can also make sense if you stopped to realize it is not an assault on your holy math.

Years ago, before I met Rob, I valued the advice that it is wise to quit when you're ahead. Unfortunately I played too long trying to overcome a drought of royal flushes. Had I listened to that wise advice I would be much better off today.

Rob was not the first to say quit when you're ahead. But why he is the brunt of all the attacks for this sound advice puzzles me.

Just remember this, Arc: our good friend Frank is on the record as saying he has NEVER played VP with his own money in 14 years. And this comes from the AP of APs. If he had so much faith in the math why wouldn't he play with his own money? And the answer is-- because you can't bank on a theory. You can only hope the theory works for you.

[arcimede$]

Very good Arc, welcome to the real world, where the rest of us play... and for fun. And when you play for fun, and you're not married to any silly math demons that say cashing out makes no sense, Rob's strategy for setting win goals makes a whole lot of sense, and maybe some dollars too.

Nope, with negative games the only thing that affects your results is the amount you play. Nothing else is relevant. Now, if setting a win goal reduces your play then it is a good thing, but it's not the win goal itself that is important, it's the fact you play fewer hands.

Just remember this, Arc: our good friend Frank is on the record as saying he has NEVER played VP with his own money in 14 years. And this comes from the AP of APs. If he had so much faith in the math why wouldn't he play with his own money? And the answer is-- because you can't bank on a theory. You can only hope the theory works for you.

Sorry Alan, once again you are wrong. Frank's choice was only logical. He has a sure thing so he had no reason to gamble. Even though the odds of his losing were low, there was still a small chance. So, why not eliminate it. That doesn't change the fact that with a large edge a player still has a high probability of winning.

[redietz]

Negative games take your money -- that's what they're designed to do.

All the strategizing in the world won't turn negative games positive. If you want to save money, don't play.

As to Frank's not playing -- maybe Frank has issues. He evidently stopped playing as soon as easy pickings disappeared. If I had the edge he claimed to have, I would have played until recently. Frank espouses that everything is indeed random in randomland, but he stopped putting his money into play. That doesn't indicate negative games can be beaten. It indicates he witnessed allegedly positive games that couldn't be beaten. Think about it.

[Alan Mendelson]

As to Frank's not playing...He evidently stopped playing as soon as easy pickings disappeared.

That is indeed what he told me. But he said those "easy pickings" disappeared a long time ago. He also told me he wouldn't risk even one quarter of his own money in a machine today.

No one ever said that negative games can be beaten. By definition you can't beat a negative game. But you can walk away from a game with a profit, and you can do that over and over again.

You math guys are stuck on your definitions, and terminology, and theory -- and fail to overlook the obvious. People can win money from negative games without beating a negative game. Can you grab on to that concept? You'll have to do some creative thinking here, and I understand that math guys can't fathom creative thinking because... well, because it's creative. LOL

Even Rob will tell you that the longer you play at a negative expectation game the more you will lose. You will never beat it. That's why he is so critical of the APers who talk about long term. And Rob would say-- "long term what?"

You can't beat the game of craps -- which is a negative expectation game. But you can win when playing craps.

You can't beat 8/5 Bonus poker -- which is a negative expectation game. But you can win when playing 8/5 Bonus.

Are we starting to understand yet? Now, how do people win at craps, and how do they win at video poker? They pick an exit point. "Winners" do it every day.

[arcimede$]

Alan, you're making yourself look silly by spewing half-truths and thinking that is somehow meaningful. Of course people can win playing negative expectation games. It's done everywhere gambling is done. If people never won they would never go back to the casinos. So, having the ability to win has NEVER been the issue.

So, the real issue is what are a person's chances of winning more money than they lose when they gamble regularly? Now, the answer to that question is quite easy as is the math that demonstrates it. It is defined by a bell curve of possible results based on the ER of the game and the skill of the individual.

That is not theory. That is mathematical FACT.

[redietz]

Yeah, and they have their best chance of not losing at a negative game if the "exit point" they choose is their own birth canal.

Sorry, Alan, you set me up for that one.

[arcimede$]

Here's the formula for determining your chances of winning at a negative game like Bonus Poker. Let's use 50K hands, 50000*0.009/(50000^1/2*4.57) = .44

This value yields about a 17% chance of winning (see any Z table).

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's the formula for determining your chances of winning at a negative game like Bonus Poker. Let's use 50K hands, 50000*0.009/(50000^1/2*4.57) = .44

This value yields about a 17% chance of winning (see any Z table).

Win what? How do you define "winning"??

[arcimede$]

Win what? How do you define "winning"??

Winning means the odds that you are ahead after playing a total of 50K hands.

[Alan Mendelson]

Winning means the odds that you are ahead after playing a total of 50K hands.

But I can be ahead after playing ONE hand. Unless you tell me that I am going to be X-dollars ahead playing 50K hands why should I?? Why not play a fewer number of hands, take the win and go to the pool?

[redietz]

The proper question, given the game, is "Why not just go to the pool?" Period.

[arcimede$]

But I can be ahead after playing ONE hand. Unless you tell me that I am going to be X-dollars ahead playing 50K hands why should I?? Why not play a fewer number of hands, take the win and go to the pool?

I didn't say anything about a single session where you might go to the pool instead of continuing to play. In fact, I'm assuming you actually quit when you reach your win goal every time and hit the pool whenever you want. All I'm saying is after you take many trips to the casino, apply your technique (and hit the pool if you win) and eventually reach a total of 50K hands, you have only a 17% chance of being ahead for the entire time.

[Alan Mendelson]

I didn't say anything about a single session where you might go to the pool instead of continuing to play. In fact, I'm assuming you actually quit when you reach your win goal every time and hit the pool whenever you want. All I'm saying is after you take many trips to the casino, apply your technique (and hit the pool if you win) and eventually reach a total of 50K hands, you have only a 17% chance of being ahead for the entire time.

That's a wonderful piece of math Arc. I'll keep it in mind. ;-)