Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[mickeycrimm]

Yeah... forget the royal. It's a losing game. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

LOL! Alan, you and I should play video poker next to each other eight hours a day for 30 days. We'll play the single line quarter games. We each play 6000 hands per day. We will start with $10,000 bankrolls each. I will play Full Pay Deuces Wild (100.76%). You will play Dannyl's game in the picture, the 94% game with the meters.

Every time you hit a royal you can defiantly look at me and say "SEE THERE!!! I WON!!!!" You can even get up and do a jig around the machines laughing at me the whole time. I won't say a word.

But at the end of the 30 days we compare bankroll's to see who has the most money left. That is, if you have any bankroll left. LOL! Because it is unlikely that your $10,000 will last you the entire 30 days. Meanwhile, I will still be clipping along.

[RS__]

There seems to be a difference of opinion.

You're also a complete dumb fuck. Don't quote people out of context. The actual quotes:

Yes, coach. He is going to lose. That is, if he keeps playing that game.

You are not guaranteed to lose, especially if you only play a few sessions. But, the more hands you play, the higher the probability becomes of being a net loser

If you haven't figured it out yet...

Mickey: If you continue to play, you're going to lose.
RS: If you play very little, you're not guaranteed to lose. The more you play, the higher likelihood you end up losing.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickey you missed the point Rob made and I echoed. Our congratulations to the player and shame on you and anyone else who criticize him for playing that game. HE HIT THE ROYAL and that's great.

[RS__]

Mickey you missed the point Rob made and I echoed. Our congratulations to the player and shame on you and anyone else who criticize him for playing that game. HE HIT THE ROYAL and that's great.

Rob didn't congratulate dannyj.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob didn't congratulate dannyj.

You're right. He just knew that dannyj would be criticized.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey you missed the point Rob made and I echoed. Our congratulations to the player and shame on you and anyone else who criticize him for playing that game. HE HIT THE ROYAL and that's great.

Alan, I wasn't criticizing Dannyj. More power to him and any other recreational player for playing what they want to. I was pointing out the inferiority of that particular game. There are much stronger games where you can hit royals too.

BTW, Alan, in that little contest I proposed between the two of us I forgot to say that while your 10K bankroll likely won't last the entire 30 days, my bankroll will be a favorite to be higher than the 10K I started with.

[coach belly]

Don't quote people out of context.

Whatever the context, your statement was that a player is not guaranteed to lose, even if playing an -EV game.

Do you want to retract that and assert that a player is guaranteed to lose?

You have not, and apparently can not, define terms such as "short period", "few sessions", "very little" and "end up" with any precision,
you toss these vague terms around like they mean something just to cover your poindexter ass.

This was evident when you stumbled and fumbled by defining a "session" as an undefined period of time.

So go ahead and explain what "end up" means...when does play end such that you can determine whether you have won or lost overall?

Ultimately, only a few sessions played can be every session you ever play...isn't that correct?

Likelihood is not a guarantee that the player will lose...you have already confirmed that.

[redietz]

Mickey you missed the point Rob made and I echoed. Our congratulations to the player and shame on you and anyone else who criticize him for playing that game. HE HIT THE ROYAL and that's great.

I congratulate everyone who hits a royal. I also congratulate everyone who gets married. I try to withhold commenting on the games being played until after the wallets are emptied, or if I'm asked.

And who knows? DannyJ may have a better system than Rob.

[blackhole]

Whatever the context, your statement was that a player is not guaranteed to lose, even if playing an -EV game.

Do you want to retract that and assert that a player is guaranteed to lose?

You have not, and apparently can not, define terms such as "short period", "few sessions", "very little" and "end up" with any precision,
you toss these vague terms around like they mean something just to cover your poindexter ass.

This was evident when you stumbled and fumbled by defining a "session" as an undefined period of time.

So go ahead and explain what "end up" means...when does play end such that you can determine whether you have won or lost overall?

Ultimately, only a few sessions played can be every session you ever play...isn't that correct?

Likelihood is not a guarantee that the player will lose...you have already confirmed that.

Coach, these self-proclaimed fools can't even prove their play with words.

[RS__]

Whatever the context, your statement was that a player is not guaranteed to lose, even if playing an -EV game.

Do you want to retract that and assert that a player is guaranteed to lose?

You have not, and apparently can not, define terms such as "short period", "few sessions", "very little" and "end up" with any precision,
you toss these vague terms around like they mean something just to cover your poindexter ass.

This was evident when you stumbled and fumbled by defining a "session" as an undefined period of time.

So go ahead and explain what "end up" means...when does play end such that you can determine whether you have won or lost overall?

Ultimately, only a few sessions played can be every session you ever play...isn't that correct?

Likelihood is not a guarantee that the player will lose...you have already confirmed that.

This is what happens when you ask misleading and vague questions. When they are answered in context, you respond in an "Ah Ha!" moment, because you remember there was a totally different scenario where I said something different. If you can't figure out why "if you play -EV games, you're gonna lose" and "you aren't guaranteed to lose" are both true statements, then your agenda has gotten the better of you.

If you're stupid enough to not figure out what some words mean, I'm not gonna help you and spell out the definition or my interpretation of a "session" or a "long period of time" or whatever you're blabbing on about.

[coach belly]

Coach, these self-proclaimed fools can't even prove their play with words.

There seems to be confusion among them as to whether multiple sessions exist or not...some say it's all one session with pauses.

One AP talks about playing only a few sessions, and another AP says only one session exists.

So then how many is a few?...one?...more than one?

[coach belly]

your agenda has gotten the better of you.

I have no agenda, I am seeking information.

You can't give a straightforward answer, so you deflect by characterizing the questions as vague or misleading.

If you're stupid enough to not figure out what some words mean.

I'm using definitions to figure out what words mean. If there are other meanings, please explain what they are.

"if you play -EV games, you're gonna lose" and "you aren't guaranteed to lose" are both true statements

"You're gonna lose" means you are going to lose, which means you will lose...which implies certainty.

"you aren't guaranteed to lose" implies uncertainty.

So you are saying that losing is simultaneously certain and uncertain.

Under what scenario could that be possible?

[redietz]

I don't understand the ruckus. The formulas exist for figuring out probability of being ahead in any game given x number of hands. So if someone simply calls 2000 hands a "session," does that clear things up?

I'm not a math guy, but each year I watch the Great Courses "Intro to Probability" lectures as a refresher, and I must admit it is somewhat surprising how unusual the results are at the extreme half percent or so of the data curve even after a million events. But I just don't understand the confusion if you stick to a certain number of hands as referencing a "session." That seems to alleviate all difficulties, and makes all video poker play amenable to prediction.

[coach belly]

The formulas exist for figuring out probability of being ahead in any game given x number of hands.

But I just don't understand the confusion if you stick to a certain number of hands as referencing a "session." That seems to alleviate all difficulties, and makes all video poker play amenable to prediction.

Would this apply to any casino game vs the house...is that what you meant by initially saying "any game"?

One difficulty here is the dichotomy of asserting the certainty that a player will lose, while stipulating that it's also possible for him to win.

[redietz]

Reality is probabilistic. Practically, you can say that a person won't win the Mega-Millions. You can't say with absolute certainty he won't. Practically, I can bet that the sun will come up tomorrow. Can I say that with "absolute certainty?" No -- because we may get bonked by a meteor that will blot out the sun for hundreds of years. Or maybe one big enough to whack the earth in half.

It depends what you consider "certainty," and how you value "certainty." We could get struck by lightning as we step outside tomorrow, but almost all of us are going to step outside, anyway. If we decide to not do so out of probabilistic fear, most of our kind would consider that behavior unnecessarily risk averse and debilitating.

Technically, I wouldn't "assert with absolute certainty" that a player playing millions of hands of 95% video poker WILL lose. But I'll assert (state fact or belief forcefully and confidently) it and take my chances.

[Rob.Singer]

This all boils down to the same lame excuses echoed by AP's anytime anyone else who plays differently than they do, win. Their only offering?--+EV means you win/-EV means you lose....and you HAVE TO apply long-term rules to short-term play. They can't stand it when -EV players win, so they can only deal with their inability to handle it by making believe the math will get them "in the end". Of course, lost on them is the fact that if they won on the game today then they can just as easily win on the game tomorrow, regardless of their approach.

I will now allow the silly AP's here to continue contradicting themselves....and I tingle as they keep getting caught doing so

[blackhole]

uh oh, meteors, the sun, looks like star alignment might be coming into play. Please keep the blackholes out of his.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you can't figure out why "if you play -EV games, you're gonna lose" and "you aren't guaranteed to lose" are both true statements, then your agenda has gotten the better of you.

If you're gonna lose, doesn't that also mean you are guaranteed to lose?

[coach belly]

Technically, I wouldn't "assert with absolute certainty" that a player playing millions of hands of 95% video poker WILL lose. But I'll assert (state fact or belief forcefully and confidently) it and take my chances.

How many hands must be played before your confidence in the certainty of losing manifests itself?

Have you played VP? Was it a -EV game? Were you certain that you would lose? How did you "end up"?

[redietz]

Those number of hands questions are best answered via textbooks or someone teaching probability. I would call around and try to get 10 minutes time with a professor teaching probability at Rutgers or somewhere else in your neck of the woods.

You know the odds. You play or don't play accordingly. If you decide probability theory is mythical and textbooks are hogwash, more power to you.