Content Analysis of this Las Vegas Forum

[Alan Mendelson]

That's not what I said. I'm basing this off of the person already playing the game properly. That should be a given.

Good. I am glad you wrote that. So we agree that playing a positive expectation game isn't enough to be a winner. You also need the proper knowledge. Do you also need variance to go your way also? Of course you do.

And now about this:

Playing the proper strategy alone is not enough to make someone a winner at a -EV game.

You need the same variance to win at -EV games too, don't you?

That brings us full circle to my first point: you have to leave the game with a profit in order to be a winner. And that is a rule for both +EV and -EV games.

Frankly, that's the content that would really be meaningful on this site. A little more basic common sense.

[RS__]

Good. I am glad you wrote that. So we agree that playing a positive expectation game isn't enough to be a winner. You also need the proper knowledge. Do you also need variance to go your way also? Of course you do.

You don't need variance to go your way. If your results are on par with your expected results -- no, you do not need "variance to go your way". I don't have the figures on me anymore, but in 2014, I did almost $1M coin in and my results were about 99.2% return, if I remember correctly. I played a variety of 9/6 JOB, 8/5 BP, and a few other games (9/5 JOB, 7/5 BP, etc.). That return is not including free-play, promotions, drawings, etc.

*I don't keep track of coin in and such any more. In 2014 I was on a BJ (and to a smaller extent, VP) team, where the manager kept all the records of coin in and whatnot.

You need the same variance to win at -EV games too, don't you?

That brings us full circle to my first point: you have to leave the game with a profit in order to be a winner. And that is a rule for both +EV and -EV games.

Frankly, that's the content that would really be meaningful on this site.

You do need variance to win at -EV games, yes.

You do not need variance to win at +EV games.



I think you're confusing this "leave with a profit thing". If you're playing a +EV game, it isn't "try to leave with a profit" or "once you get a profit, then leave"...it's that you will be profiting...the only question is -- WHEN do you leave? Playing a -EV game, it's the other way around, you're trying to get a profit and trying to leave once you get a profit. In other words, you're essentially trying to hit a profit quickly so you leave (and play less) in a -EV game. While in a +EV game, you're trying to play as much as you can.


If "playing until you have a profit [then leaving]" was some way to beat VP or any game, well....I think we've gone over this subject many times -- why not just leave and come back 5 seconds later?

[Alan Mendelson]

What I am talking about RS__ is variance going AGAINST you when you play your +EV games. Then what?

[RS__]

What I am talking about RS__ is variance going AGAINST you when you play your +EV games. Then what?

Then it depends on how bad the variance is (or how bad it can be) compared to your advantage. If you're playing something with a 0.5%, then yes, you're going to have to hit a royal or else you're gonna lose. (Play enough hands, you'll hit a royal.) Or if you play something with a 5% advantage, you don't need to hit a royal to come out a winner. And with a 15% advantage, you don't have to hit a RF, SF, or any 4oaks to come out a winner.

PS: I rarely play games with a very small advantage (2% or lower). I rarely play full pay deuces or those multiplier days at Boyd/South Point/etc. that push a game from a small loser to a small winner.

[Rob.Singer]

This is where you should be leaving the math books at home RS__.

When someone wants to and is able to simply get up from a session and walk after attaining a win they're satisfied with, whether the game is theoretically 98% or 103% or anything in-between is completely irrelevant. And your statement that you don't need certain hands to win based on how high the % "edge" is shows me you're not a winning player because you approach the game exactly how the casinos want you to approach it.

The biggest mistake any player can make is by pretending any single session is a part of some bigger, more encompassing event. That only holds true for the casino--and the machine. All you're doing is entering into the machine's long term journey for a tiny amount of time. And you have no idea if that experience is to be during a phase of the machine's giving or its taking away from whomever plays it.

I think you guys tangle all this play up together in some mish-mash of an event for two reasons: first, convoluting it like that allows excuses for losing. (Ever hear a vp "AP" claim they "know" they'll win tomorrow after taking a big loss today? Think about how stupid that is....) Then, it gives the ap justification for the enormous amounts of time & play they put in--a sort of "justification" for their severe addiction to the game.

[RS__]

This is where you should be leaving the math books at home RS__.

When someone wants to and is able to simply get up from a session and walk after attaining a win they're satisfied with, whether the game is theoretically 98% or 103% or anything in-between is completely irrelevant. And your statement that you don't need certain hands to win based on how high the % "edge" is shows me you're not a winning player because you approach the game exactly how the casinos want you to approach it.

The biggest mistake any player can make is by pretending any single session is a part of some bigger, more encompassing event. That only holds true for the casino--and the machine. All you're doing is entering into the machine's long term journey for a tiny amount of time. And you have no idea if that experience is to be during a phase of the machine's giving or its taking away from whomever plays it.

I think you guys tangle all this play up together in some mish-mash of an event for two reasons: first, convoluting it like that allows excuses for losing. (Ever hear a vp "AP" claim they "know" they'll win tomorrow after taking a big loss today? Think about how stupid that is....) Then, it gives the ap justification for the enormous amounts of time & play they put in--a sort of "justification" for their severe addiction to the game.

I'm pretty sure the casino wants me to approach their games in a different way than how I am approaching them...lol

I think you're mixed up with what "long term" means. It's not some super-infinite number of hands. As far as I'm concerned, it's the number of hands you must play before you are X% chance to be at Y level (Y being breaking even or better....or +$1,000 or better....or +$10,000 or better...etc.). The more you play the more variance there is going to be, but the variance curve gets smaller (tends to flatten out over time) compared to EV. Once the negative side of variance (or -1 standard deviation) hits the $0 mark -- that is 1 long term. 2 long terms is where -2 standard deviations hits the $0 mark. But I'm sure you know all about this, being an ex-AP, right?

Never heard an AP claim they know they'll win tomorrow after taking a big loss today, no, I haven't. But, I'm confused -- These AP's who lose so much money to the casinos and putting in so many hours -- how on Earth are they able to afford such an evil addiction?!

[jbjb]

...I'm confused -- These AP's who lose so much money to the casinos and putting in so many hours -- how on Earth are they able to afford such an evil addiction?!

They sell all of that stolen food from the buffets!! Didn't you know that?? :-)

[Rob.Singer]

They're able to afford it just like anyone who puts casino gambling before most other things in life. Some people would rather buy clothes every week or collect antiques whenever they have the money to. Others are deeply into electronics and stereos. Still others are obsessed with travel. It's not that they don't do anything else. It's that they could not live without putting a great majority of their money towards gambling.

[jbjb]

They're able to afford it just like anyone who puts casino gambling before most other things in life. Some people would rather buy clothes every week or collect antiques whenever they have the money to. Others are deeply into electronics and stereos. Still others are obsessed with travel. It's not that they don't do anything else. It's that they could not live without putting a great majority of their money towards gambling.

I think RS_ is talking about the ones who have no other income EXCEPT for AP plays.

[Alan Mendelson]

I think RS_ is talking about the ones who have no other income EXCEPT for AP plays.

I've often wondered just how much these professional AP gamblers earn in a year? Just once I would like to see an unbiased report from some third-party on "gamblers' income" similar to what you might find for teacher salaries or veterinarians or auto workers or service workers in the restaurant business.

[slingshot]

What I am talking about RS__ is variance going AGAINST you when you play your +EV games. Then what?

Glad you're sticking with it, Alan. This a.m. I hit the Royal in diamonds. Thought it was just gonna be another scare w/4 to the Royal. And I'll be the first to admit, with $945 in my pocket, the thought was there- just go hit a small quad and get it an even $1,000. But I walked and my wife even asked if I ever went to play- I was only there 30 minutes or so. I'm hooked on leaving!!

[Alan Mendelson]

This a.m. I hit the Royal in diamonds.

Congratulations and if you have a photo please post in our Big Casino Wins thread.

[redietz]

I've often wondered just how much these professional AP gamblers earn in a year? Just once I would like to see an unbiased report from some third-party on "gamblers' income" similar to what you might find for teacher salaries or veterinarians or auto workers or service workers in the restaurant business.

I don't get the question. People playing dollar video poker probably make about 20k a year. Somebody like Billy Walters probably makes 10 million a year. It's like asking about the income of "television professionals."

[Rob.Singer]

I don't get the question. People playing dollar video poker probably make about 20k a year. Somebody like Billy Walters probably makes 10 million a year. It's like asking about the income of "television professionals."

He said a report--not a guess.

[redietz]

Jesus, that was my point. There are no such "reports." There's no report out there on "television professionals" income because it's too broad a category. It covers completely different people doing completely different things.

The same with "AP" gambling. It's too broad a phrase, covering completely different people doing completely different things.

That was my (obvious) point.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's like asking about the income of "television professionals."

There are published reports on salaries of TV reporters, news directors, anchors, etc. put out by the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and I am pretty sure the Bureau of Labor Statistics has it's reports. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the major universities such as Syracuse University and Northeastern which have big TV-Journalism-Media schools have their own studies.

Redietz you're a critic of how ESPN reports "winnings" of poker players. I would think you'd also like to see an independent study on what APs actually earn?

Jesus, that was my point. There are no such "reports."

Edited to add: here's one report on TV salaries you might be interested in redietz. You see, there are such reports. http://www.rtdna.org/uploads/files/Salary_Survey_10.pdf

[redietz]

As you said, if you break down the general term "television personalities" into discreet categories, and a lot of them, then you can get a sense. If you were to break down "AP" gambling into discreet categories, and a lot of them, then maybe you'd also get a sense. But nobody is going to self-identify as an AP if it has a negative impact on income, which it does. It would be like narcs answering public surveys with their real names. Narcs aren't going to do that. Neither are CIA agents. Neither are APs.

[Rob.Singer]

Apparently, red graduated from the same "uh-oh....my FACTS and assertions just might make me look kind of foolish!" school as arci did.

[redietz]

Alan, there are 20 different categories listed in that report. That's my point. There are no reports for "television personalities" as a category. It's pointless to think of them as a single category. The same with AP's. It's equally foolish to think of APs or "gamblers" as a single category.

Alan used the phrase "gamblers' income." The word "gamblers" is way too broad, just as the phrase "television personalities" is too broad. There is no report for "television personalities" as a category. Alan's links demonstrate that. The report lists 20 different categories of jobs. If you just add up all of the data for all of those completely different jobs, it tells you nothing.

I think I was pretty clear. Rob is having reading comprehension issues.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, a television personality would not be considered a news person, so you wouldn't find a salary for a television personality from the Radio-Television News Directors Association.

Television Personalities include talk show hosts, game show hosts, entertainment show hosts. And I think AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) would have those reports. In fact, I'm pretty sure SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actors Guild merged with AFTRA a year or so ago) would be able to issue such a report since the salaries are reported to the union. You wouldn't find any names attached, but like the report from the RTNDA you would see ranges based on market size.

When I was a news reporter/anchor my salary was reported to AFTRA, and now that I am an Infomercial host my income is reported to SAG-AFTRA as part of the Infomercial Production Contract. I have been an AFTRA member since 1972.