Grochowski on "advantage video poker"

[redietz]

And if you are hitting Royals way before the RF cycle then you are making way more than your EV.

That's right. And if you quit when ahead you can also beat the EV of any game.

Of course, then you can't play anymore, since quitting isn't pausing.

So I guess the next step is to find multiple games to use for "quitting when ahead." Heck, maybe record the serial numbers of individual machines and count each of them as an opportunity to quit when ahead. There's gotta be 30,000 vp machines in Nevada (out of 160,000 slots overall), so you should be able to make a ton of money.

[Rob.Singer]

Flawed thinking again red. You tend to portray that when someone who wins and quits while ahead comes back to play anywhere in the future, they cannot and will not be able to do it again....and again, and again, and again. Then let me guess--you'd say that if this were the case, a devastating loss would someday come upon the player, thereby wiping out all those wins and more....completely ignoring the fact that any huge winners that appeared would far more than make up for even multiple devastating losses. And the EV of the machines has next to nothing to do with it.

It's exactly how I've played so successfully over my professional career, and why the LV AP's made such fools of themselves when confronting me. It doesn't always have to be the way the AP's want it, the math books say it should be, or your university professors expect it to be. You see, when you're capable of using that amazing computer attached to you neck in the most intelligent and creative of ways, new paths can be and are always being formed--even in the face of the so-called "experts" not understanding it or wanting it to be.

[coach belly]

Of course, then you can't play anymore, since quitting isn't pausing.

Yes it is.

For the purposes of discussing gambling "sessions", quitting and pausing mean the same thing.

[redietz]

Of course, then you can't play anymore, since quitting isn't pausing.

Yes it is.

For the purposes of discussing gambling "sessions", quitting and pausing mean the same thing.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you've gotta then define "sessions." Is a "session" whatever anybody decides it is? And how long exactly is the "pause" that's actually a "quit?" Ten seconds? Five minutes? An hour?

What's to stop me from winning a hand, "quitting when ahead" for five seconds, then starting another "session?"

Based on this line of reasoning, I should win like a bandit all day.

[redietz]

Flawed thinking again red. You tend to portray that when someone who wins and quits while ahead comes back to play anywhere in the future, they cannot and will not be able to do it again....and again, and again, and again. Then let me guess--you'd say that if this were the case, a devastating loss would someday come upon the player, thereby wiping out all those wins and more....completely ignoring the fact that any huge winners that appeared would far more than make up for even multiple devastating losses. And the EV of the machines has next to nothing to do with it.

It's exactly how I've played so successfully over my professional career, and why the LV AP's made such fools of themselves when confronting me. It doesn't always have to be the way the AP's want it, the math books say it should be, or your university professors expect it to be. You see, when you're capable of using that amazing computer attached to you neck in the most intelligent and creative of ways, new paths can be and are always being formed--even in the face of the so-called "experts" not understanding it or wanting it to be.

No math. Individual attributes overcome probability. Brilliant iconoclastic genius as one-of-a-kind who is beset by credentialed critics, including others in the field and professors. Attaches himself to the occasional media person unqualified or unwilling to evaluate. No hands per royal data. No hands per quad data. Isolated lone voice in the wilderness versus the evil APs, math books, and university professors.

Jesus, Rob, people are going to think I wrote this stuff to make a point regarding quackery. Are you writing a textbook on the subject?

[coach belly]

What's to stop me from winning a hand, "quitting when ahead" for five seconds, then starting another "session?"

Based on this line of reasoning, I should win like a bandit all day.

As long as you always quit when ahead, you will...even if the sessions are all just one hand.

But quitting when ahead doesn't mean you can't ever play again.

It seems like you're the only one who doesn't understand that.

[redietz]

Coach, let me try to pin you down on this. Other than helpfully reducing the number of hands played (always good at a negative EV game), do you really believe pausing when ahead makes you more likely to win at video poker?

[jbjb]

Coach, let me try to pin you down on this. Other than helpfully reducing the number of hands played (always good at a negative EV game), do you really believe pausing when ahead makes you more likely to win at video poker?

Of course he'll say yes. So will Alan, Rob and a few others. Problem is, they always throw the qualifier "IF" in their answer. The real question is "CAN they do it?"

And since NONE of these guys will try and do this full time with no other income involved tells me the answer is a big fat NO!!

[regnis]

JB--as someone who has gambled for a living and worked for a living, deciding to work rather than gamble is not an easy choice. For a period of 5-6 years I thought it was great not to work and have no responsibility to anyone, even though I could make a pretty comfortable living if I continued to work. I was happy for a few years but then the gambling, which I once loved, became less fun. Not because I wasn't winning, but my hobby became my job and I therefore wasn't enjoying it the way i hoped.
I went back to work and re-developed a pretty successful practice while still gambling very frequently. Now, as I am much older, and with on-line access, I can work (maybe 20 hours a week) and play horses full time so I am right where I want to be.

So there is more to "NONE of these guys will try and do this full time" than just doing it. I did, and wound up not liking it.

Beyond that there is health insurance, benefits, interacting with other humans, and a multitude of factors. But it is definitely not just a question of why don't they just do it if they are so sure it worked.

[coach belly]

Coach, let me try to pin you down on this. Other than helpfully reducing the number of hands played (always good at a negative EV game), do you really believe pausing when ahead makes you more likely to win at video poker?

More likely than what?

[RS__]

I see a bunch of people who do not gamble for a living saying you can beat a negative game, then a bunch of people who actually do gamble for a living saying you can't. Hmm.....

[redietz]

Coach, let me try to pin you down on this. Other than helpfully reducing the number of hands played (always good at a negative EV game), do you really believe pausing when ahead makes you more likely to win at video poker?

More likely than what?

More likely than pausing every x number of hands or every y number of minutes?

[Rob.Singer]

Red you're trying your best to show you're dumber than a bag of rocks when it comes to gambling successfully. Would this be in that mysterious "PR Packet" of yours?

[Alan Mendelson]

Of course, then you can't play anymore, since quitting isn't pausing.

Yes it is.

For the purposes of discussing gambling "sessions", quitting and pausing mean the same thing.

Perfectly said Coach. And EVERYONE understands that except for nitpicking APs and pseudo gambling experts who pretend to dwell on the Mt. Olympus of casino gaming Gods and think they're so smart. I'm sick of it.

[redietz]

Red you're trying your best to show you're dumber than a bag of rocks when it comes to gambling successfully. Would this be in that mysterious "PR Packet" of yours?

Rob, help me out here, buddy. Are you on record as saying quitting when one gets ahead will result in greater vp profits than quitting after x number of hands or y number of minutes?

Yes, I'm dumber than a bag of rocks when it comes to gambling successfully. Says so right on my resume.

[Rob.Singer]

I see a bunch of people who do not gamble for a living saying you can beat a negative game, then a bunch of people who actually do gamble for a living saying you can't. Hmm.....

And exactly where is the proof that a bunch of anonymous "AP's" are anything other than armchair gamblers?

I would have had a field day writing about clowns like you with silly claims like that in GT. And all the while, I actually made my living on a nearly 6-figure vp income yearly--albeit which was much less than my salary from working before turning pro--and I played negative vp almost exclusively after 2002 without adding in all the slot club fluff, tournaments, drawings, or any of that other meaningless, phantom-bucks-laced baloney you people have to do.

Wise up.

[Alan Mendelson]

Of course, then you can't play anymore, since quitting isn't pausing.

Yes it is.

For the purposes of discussing gambling "sessions", quitting and pausing mean the same thing.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you've gotta then define "sessions." Is a "session" whatever anybody decides it is? And how long exactly is the "pause" that's actually a "quit?" Ten seconds? Five minutes? An hour?

What's to stop me from winning a hand, "quitting when ahead" for five seconds, then starting another "session?"

Based on this line of reasoning, I should win like a bandit all day.

I'm getting tired of your "I'm so holy" self so let me make this clear to you since everyone on the planet understands it except all you experts:

Each and every time you stop, pause or quit when ahead you've won.

[Alan Mendelson]

Coach, let me try to pin you down on this. Other than helpfully reducing the number of hands played (always good at a negative EV game), do you really believe pausing when ahead makes you more likely to win at video poker?

Of course he'll say yes. So will Alan, Rob and a few others. Problem is, they always throw the qualifier "IF" in their answer. The real question is "CAN they do it?"

And since NONE of these guys will try and do this full time with no other income involved tells me the answer is a big fat NO!!

No. Quitting when ahead does not make it more likely you will win. But you can't win unless you do quit, pause or stop.

This AP mantra of continuous play at positive machines until you collapse or are weak with hunger or about to pee in your seat is ridiculous because these events could happen when you are showing a loss.

The only way to have a profit is to stop with a profit.

Only APs don't understand that.

[Alan Mendelson]

I see a bunch of people who do not gamble for a living saying you can beat a negative game, then a bunch of people who actually do gamble for a living saying you can't. Hmm.....

You have it wrong. There is a difference between beating a negative game and stopping with a profit.

In fact this was discussed on WOV. No one beats a negative expectation game but people do win money on them.

[redietz]

For anyone sadly reading most of this, I have a suggestion.

Consult your local math professional -- someone with a doctorate in math who teaches probability. No sense getting gambling advice from a forum.

In addition, I recommend "Probability Made Clear" from The Great Courses, taught by Michael Starbird. He uses many gambling examples.