The Package

[kewlJ]

Expert and winning are not synonymous.

Expert is defined as an authoritative knowledge of a specific area.

Since there is no such thing as long-term luck (Rob), long-term winning players who have figured a way to win on a consistent basis, qualify as experts, but not all experts are long-term winners.

(Long-term) winning players are experts, based on their extensive knowledge (not necessarily their winnings). But not all experts are winning players. You can be an expert based on authoritative knowledge and still play a losing game (often by choice) as Alan does. Or you can be an expert and not play at all, or worse case scenario, you can be a expert on casino gaming or specific area there of, and "play for the industry".

[Alan Mendelson]

Expert and winning are not synonymous.

Expert is defined as an authoritative knowledge of a specific area.

Since there is no such thing as long-term luck (Rob), long-term winning players who have figured a way to win on a consistent basis, qualify as experts, but not all experts are long-term winners.

(Long-term) winning players are experts, based on their extensive knowledge (not necessarily their winnings). But not all experts are winning players. You can be an expert based on authoritative knowledge and still play a losing game (often by choice) as Alan does. Or you can be an expert and not play at all, or worse case scenario, you can be a expert on casino gaming or specific area there of, and "play for the industry".

I'm not sure you can prove your statements. Indeed expert and winning are not synonymous. There are expert players at the WSOP who lose, and they keep on losing because some people just get lucky and these experts don't.

I consider Dan an expert at his game... unfortunately he hasn't done well in recent years. The reality is when you face a thousand competitors, somebody is going to draw the lucky cards despite all your knowledge.

That is exactly what happens in video poker. We know what the correct holds are -- but the damn RNG just doesn't cooperate all the time.

And I disagree about long term luck. Yes, there are people who get lucky long term. All they have to do is hit one big jackpot like the lottery and they will never be lifetime losers. That's not to say, however, they won't go broke spending it all. And there are some people who just keep muddling through.

[Alan Mendelson]

That's right, RS___, how do you define an expert?

Is it by winning? No. Lucky players win.
Is it by knowing the rules and the procedures of the game? Yes, that's what I think an expert is.

And yes, it was a question.

Wait.....so, you're actually serious?! LOL

I know the rules and procedures of chess, that doesn't make me a chess expert.


You say you're probably an expert in VP & craps, yet your definition of an expert is someone who knows the rules & procedures of a game. Are you saying you probably know the rules & procedures in VP and craps (but you might not know, since probably implies something isn't definite)?

Do you want to be specific? I'm an expert at craps, yes. I've been playing for 20+ years. Sometimes -- believe it or not -- when the dice mess up the placement of the chips the floorman will sometimes look at me to help reconstruct the table. Why? Ever since Caesars got rid of boxmen, I've been "playing" the role of the boxman and I memorize what's on the table. I do it to protect myself and to protect the other players... as well as the house. I want to keep the game going and don't want disputes. I know all the payoffs, for right way and wrong way players. Now does that mean I can control the dice? No. Does that mean I always win? Definitely not. But I know the game and the rules and if I was called on to be a dealer I could deal.

Video poker? I'm not an expert at every game, but I sure know how to play bonus and jacks or better. I also know triple double bonus. I know the correct holds but does the RNG cooperate with my knowledge? Not enough. You need luck along with your knowledge.

[kewlJ]

I'm not sure you can prove your statements.

You posting this exemplifies the fundamental difference in thinking between you and I concerning message board posting. I just posted my opinion of what I consider an expert. You respond that I can't prove my opinion.

News flash Alan....I don't have to prove my opinion.

I don't have to prove anything, opinion or claims. That is the way an anonymous message board works. Part of the fun, the challenge is figuring out who is credible and knows what they are talking about and who isn't. You or anyone is within their right to be skeptical of anything said, but you are not within your right to demand proof of anything. No one is on trial and has to 'prove' anything....claims and especially opinions.

Demand proof of an opinion.....what planet are you from?

And I disagree about long term luck. Yes, there are people who get lucky long term. All they have to do is hit one big jackpot like the lottery and they will never be lifetime losers.

I though someone might bring this up and considered addressing it up front. But then I figured no one was ridiculous enough to conflate a one time big jackpot with long-term winning. But you proved (a word you seem to love) me wrong. Someone was ridiculous enough to conflate the two.

If you don't understand the difference between a one-time big jackpot winner and a long-term advantage winner, it is no wonder you can't grasp advantage play. You are on opposite ends of the spectrum in just the way you think.

[Alan Mendelson]

If I won $100-million by picking 7 numbers would it matter how many hands of $5 Bonus Poker I lost over the next 30 years? LOL

[RS__]

Do you want to be specific? I'm an expert at craps, yes. I've been playing for 20+ years. Sometimes -- believe it or not -- when the dice mess up the placement of the chips the floorman will sometimes look at me to help reconstruct the table. Why? Ever since Caesars got rid of boxmen, I've been "playing" the role of the boxman and I memorize what's on the table. I do it to protect myself and to protect the other players... as well as the house. I want to keep the game going and don't want disputes. I know all the payoffs, for right way and wrong way players. Now does that mean I can control the dice? No. Does that mean I always win? Definitely not. But I know the game and the rules and if I was called on to be a dealer I could deal.

Video poker? I'm not an expert at every game, but I sure know how to play bonus and jacks or better. I also know triple double bonus. I know the correct holds but does the RNG cooperate with my knowledge? Not enough. You need luck along with your knowledge.

Granted the original definition of 'expert' you gave is complete horse shit, yes, you should be a bit more specific than simply knowing the rules and procedures makes someone an expert.


I don't think knowing those things really makes you an expert. Or rather, I don't think every field can have someone of expertise. Expertise requires in depth knowledge and a true understanding, IMO. Sure, you can know optimal strategy to tic-tac-toe, but you can never be an expert in it....because there isn't a significant amount of information to be learned on the game -- it's a solved "problem" and is basic and straightforward. Just because some may not know the proper strategy doesn't mean others can be experts. To me, craps is the same thing. There's no depth to the game itself. If you want to say someone can be a DI expert, I agree there (not that I believe DI works, but someone can be an expert in that field).


As far as VP, I don't think knowing a strategy makes someone an expert. Not to mention, I don't think you even know the proper optimal strategy to any of those three games and you certainly don't play with the optimal or even basic strategy.

[Alan Mendelson]

If I won $100-million by picking 7 numbers would it matter how many hands of $5 Bonus Poker I lost over the next 30 years? LOL

[kewlJ]

If I won $100-million by picking 7 numbers would it matter how many hands of $5 Bonus Poker I lost over the next 30 years? LOL

Really? You want to post this not once...but twice?

I would be embarrassed to have even had this thought, much less post it.

[AxelWolf]

I'm an expert at knowing who isn't an expert.

[redietz]

I'm an expert at knowing who isn't an expert.

You know, I always thought my strength was knowing what I don't know. It's good to meet someone who knows when other people don't know that they don't know.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, I can't explain how it posted twice??????

[quahaug]

Putting 10,000 hours into some activity, job, game ect. makes an expert.

[redietz]

Putting 10,000 hours into some activity, job, game ect. makes an expert.

Quahaug, I would be careful using the Malcolm Gladwell definition. That makes all of us Americans porn experts.

[Rob.Singer]

More corn red. No wonder you're unmarried, riding busses, and incapable of mailing things with integrity or putting links up on the web.

You keep insisting on handing me your silly pr packet at G2E because you want to "prove" whatever it is you're trying to prove. But do you realize how stupid of you that sounds? Just what a doubting thomas who seems to be under your skin wants: papers from the claimant. Instead, SHOW US THESE ASSERTIONS ON THE INTERNET.

Now kew claims opining as an anonymous poster doesn't count. Imagine if he used that line at some gay bath house.

AP's continually toot their horns by claiming "long term success" because they're "experts in their field". Yet the best of the best--Mike Shack.--who has made millions off of his ability to run the numbers and put them up on the internet, had zero success in long term advantage play vp. But we're supposed to believe all these anonymous hacks who troll forums with their "I win, and the proof is in the theory....but don't ever ask me to support any if it in any real way". They're all like the whining libtards: "You have your right to an opinion, but if it differs from mine then you're dead wrong and a hater!"

[slingshot]

If I won $100-million by picking 7 numbers would it matter how many hands of $5 Bonus Poker I lost over the next 30 years? LOL

Worth repeating.

[redietz]

More corn red. No wonder you're unmarried, riding busses, and incapable of mailing things with integrity or putting links up on the web.

You keep insisting on handing me your silly pr packet at G2E because you want to "prove" whatever it is you're trying to prove. But do you realize how stupid of you that sounds? Just what a doubting thomas who seems to be under your skin wants: papers from the claimant. Instead, SHOW US THESE ASSERTIONS ON THE INTERNET.

Now kew claims opining as an anonymous poster doesn't count. Imagine if he used that line at some gay bath house.

AP's continually toot their horns by claiming "long term success" because they're "experts in their field". Yet the best of the best--Mike Shack.--who has made millions off of his ability to run the numbers and put them up on the internet, had zero success in long term advantage play vp. But we're supposed to believe all these anonymous hacks who troll forums with their "I win, and the proof is in the theory....but don't ever ask me to support any if it in any real way". They're all like the whining libtards: "You have your right to an opinion, but if it differs from mine then you're dead wrong and a hater!"

Rob, you're hilarious. Where are your claims to fame? On the internet? I don't see any. Anybody else see any? I don't see a damned thing on the internet regarding anything you've done. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.

Your interviews with Alan? What do they prove? That you don't know what you're doing and you need a new wardrobe?

Please point us in the direction of your internet expertise. You posted a couple of jackpots. You've gotta be kidding -- that's your proof? I won $2500 on a $20 bet yesterday. Should I post a photo of that as proof that I know what I'm doing? That's ridiculous.

You, the person with no internet proof, no references who will go to bat for your gambling expertise, no knowledge of anything other than martingale video poker, you criticize people for a lack of internet proof?

That's the very definition of a hypocrite. . . . man.

[slingshot]

More corn red. No wonder you're unmarried, riding busses, and incapable of mailing things with integrity or putting links up on the web.

You keep insisting on handing me your silly pr packet at G2E because you want to "prove" whatever it is you're trying to prove. But do you realize how stupid of you that sounds? Just what a doubting thomas who seems to be under your skin wants: papers from the claimant. Instead, SHOW US THESE ASSERTIONS ON THE INTERNET.

Now kew claims opining as an anonymous poster doesn't count. Imagine if he used that line at some gay bath house.

AP's continually toot their horns by claiming "long term success" because they're "experts in their field". Yet the best of the best--Mike Shack.--who has made millions off of his ability to run the numbers and put them up on the internet, had zero success in long term advantage play vp. But we're supposed to believe all these anonymous hacks who troll forums with their "I win, and the proof is in the theory....but don't ever ask me to support any if it in any real way". They're all like the whining libtards: "You have your right to an opinion, but if it differs from mine then you're dead wrong and a hater!"

Rob, you're hilarious. Where are your claims to fame? On the internet? I don't see any. Anybody else see any? I don't see a damned thing on the internet regarding anything you've done. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.

Your interviews with Alan? What do they prove? That you don't know what you're doing and you need a new wardrobe?

Please point us in the direction of your internet expertise. You posted a couple of jackpots. You've gotta be kidding -- that's your proof? I won $2500 on a $20 bet yesterday. Should I post a photo of that as proof that I know what I'm doing? That's ridiculous.

You, the person with no internet proof, no references who will go to bat for your gambling expertise, no knowledge of anything other than martingale video poker, you criticize people for a lack of internet proof?

That's the very definition of a hypocrite. . . . man.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en-...Bd5L8uaMa_mDM:
You need to watch your appearance, Rob.

[jbjb]

Sling, you must go through a ton of Charmin wiping all of Singer's shit off of that brown nose you've got!!

[kewlJ]

Now kew claims opining as an anonymous poster doesn't count. Imagine if he used that line at some gay bath house.

I have never been to a gay bath house. Not something that interests me. But since you are the expert Rob and obviously have....please tell us all how that would be received?

[Alan Mendelson]

I figured it out. The post appeared twice because I was using my cell phone. The first post went thru but the outgoing post remained on my phone and at some point I pressed something on my phone which sent it again. (I was still on the reply page of the forum.)

What Rob wrote about The Wizard supports what I said. We all agree Mike is an expert at the math of gaming but that doesn't necessarily means he wins.

You don't have to win to be an expert.

If experts always won, APs would never have losing sessions.

It's luck that your expert knowledge coincides with the shuffle, or the roll, or the spin, or the choice of the RNG. Knowledge alone doesn't make anyone a winner -- it helps -- but you need luck.