Of Math and Men

[arcimede$]

Okay, so you win 45% of sessions. What if someone decided to win smaller amounts and increase their win rate to 100%. In other words, they decide to grind out a small win every day. It's what I do when I play cash games at poker. Just came back with a $301 win, not as good as yesterday's net win of $600 (which included the big $800 pot), and the day before, alas, it was only a net win of $3 (three dollars).

In video poker you can't win every day. Sorry, even on positive games you will lose some days.

I think the key here is not how much I actually won, but how much I didn't lose. Why do I say that?

Because when I got to the table this evening the player to my right at this $200 buy-in table had a stack of $1600+. That's right -- sixteen hundred. He left a few minutes before I did. Busted. It's funny (not) but money management is really crucial to all gambling.

To a certain degree you are right. But, not in the way I suspect you are thinking. In poker the house takes enough money off the top so you are playing a with a smaller chance of success. Admittedly, skill can overcome much of that, but cards can go bad at any time.

In VP with a good positive edge it is not as important. However, you have to be aware of bankroll considerations because you can have big losing streaks even on positive games.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I'm not quite sure what you are discussing here: "In poker the house takes enough money off the top so you are playing a with a smaller chance of success. Admittedly, skill can overcome much of that, but cards can go bad at any time." Would you mind elaborating?

If you are talking about winning against the house in poker, I'm afraid you have it wrong. The "rake" or fee that the house collects on every hand is a fee or tax for the use of the dealer, the table, the bricks and mortar. In live poker and in poker tournaments you are not playing against the house (casino). You are only playing against other players. The house doesn't care who wins the pot and the house has no stake in the outcome of the hand.

Even casinos that offer jackpots for "bad beats" are simply paying those jackpots from part of the rake which was used to fund the jackpots.

The house rake or fee becomes an issue when there is little betting and then players would rather "chop" or "surrender" their hands rather than have the house rake eat up a large percentage of what otherwise would be a small pot. When there is no action (no betting) between two players, the house rake or fee is typically reduced to just one-dollar and the big blind gets all of his money back and the small blind pays the one dollar fee out of his small blind money.

Yes, the house gets something in every hand because the tax man always gets paid.

If you are talking about something different, what is it?

[arcimede$]

Arc, I'm not quite sure what you are discussing here: "In poker the house takes enough money off the top so you are playing a with a smaller chance of success. Admittedly, skill can overcome much of that, but cards can go bad at any time." Would you mind elaborating?

If you are talking about winning against the house in poker, I'm afraid you have it wrong. The "rake" or fee that the house collects on every hand is a fee or tax for the use of the dealer, the table, the bricks and mortar. In live poker and in poker tournaments you are not playing against the house (casino). You are only playing against other players. The house doesn't care who wins the pot and the house has no stake in the outcome of the hand.

All I said was money comes off the top. You cannot win that money. Understand?

Even casinos that offer jackpots for "bad beats" are simply paying those jackpots from part of the rake which was used to fund the jackpots.

The house rake or fee becomes an issue when there is little betting and then players would rather "chop" or "surrender" their hands rather than have the house rake eat up a large percentage of what otherwise would be a small pot. When there is no action (no betting) between two players, the house rake or fee is typically reduced to just one-dollar and the big blind gets all of his money back and the small blind pays the one dollar fee out of his small blind money.

Yes, the house gets something in every hand because the tax man always gets paid.

If you are talking about something different, what is it?

The point is the amount of money available for players to win is less than what the players bring to the table. Hence, it is basically a negative game. To be successful you have to overcome this factor as well as the skill of other players.

With VP and positive games there is essentially more money available. Hence, money management is not as important as it is in poker.

[Alan Mendelson]

Gee Arc, I'm going to have to print your comments out and show it around the table next time I play. I don't think most players at live poker think about the game in those terms. Perhaps one of you who are members of the 2+2 Poker Forum would like to post this over there?

[Spock]

And do folks understand that Rob compartmentalizing his play into "AP Days," "Professional Days," and "Post-Professional days" gives him three data streams from which to cherry pick outcomes and tie them in with theories when in fact it's all just one reality?

I think it may be even more bizarre than that. In March of '09 he relates a trip that where he says "Because I wasn’t on a true profit-taking trip and I hardly took the bankroll for it anyway, I planned on playing around with a combination of my RTT and ARTT strategies". He brought $2,000, and had a total of $450 in free play, didn't hit much, and at the end said "So after tips and whatever food I had to buy along the way, I basically took home nothing after starting out with $2000"

A week later he wrote: "For the first time this year I played actual for-profit sessions with my Advanced Romp-Thru-Town (ARTT) strategy" and the result of that was "My profit for the trip was around $8000"

So maybe you should add "for-profit playing" to your original 3 categories.

[Alan Mendelson]

Spock, thank you for joining us. Rob Singer certainly has a lot of inconsistencies and I'm not going to defend him because even I've seen the inconsistencies with what he preaches and what he practices.

But my real purpose for posting was to thank you for joining the forum, and we all look forward to your participation.

[redietz]

Thirty years ago I canvassed many poker rooms in LV, as I was interested in doing some gender studies. Anyway, at the time, it was clear (and I was told this straight out) that I wasn't going to win any money playing any appreciable time at poker tables. The managers were nice enough to be honest and explain that house rake was just too much for anyone to overcome. Now it's 30 years later, and while maybe somebody can make some money at non-high-denom tables, I doubt it.

The way to answer the question, Alan, isn't to speculate or refer to one's personal experience, but to ask the poker room managers. What percent of players actually win? I suspect it's really low, and it would be nada if the games were other than NL hold 'em.

Just run the simulations with average players and house rake and see what transpires.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't know about your simulations, but this past week alone I am up $1103. How much did I contribute to the rake? Probably a lot. But the bottom line is I have $1103 more than I did a week earlier.

Now, as I've already pointed out... $500 went to my wife for a new computer, and today $767 went to my local auto repair shop for new brakes and rotors, a lens cover over a turn signal that was destroyed by road debris, an oil change and service (its a Mercedes) and a replacement cable for where the signal light got knocked out.

Unfortunately I can't use the computer or the auto repairs to offset my wins at the casino.

Also, there is an interesting section in Doyle Brunson's book about how you can get wiped out by antes if you don't play aggressively. And using that to turn an analogy -- if you don't win hands in live poker you will also get wiped out by the rake.

If you contribute one dollar per round to the rake, you are likely to contribute $3 per hour to the rake. So you need to win that $3 plus win back your blinds just to break even per hour.

In all honesty, that's about three hands of $1 video poker per hour. If you can't win that fifteen dollars in an hour, you are the donk at the table... or you are having a very bad day.

[Vegas Vic]

I understand what you're saying Vegas_lover, but here we have Arc who says he wins 45% of his sessions yet manages a six-figure profit over six years (did I get that correctly?) playing 25-cent and $1 VP.

From much earlier in this thread:

Originally Posted by arcimede$
I won over 6 figures since 2004 when I started keeping good records. I was a quarter player in the beginning and have only played consistently at the dollar level the last 3 years. Not bad for a part timer.

I then asked this:

"Am I reading this correctly: playing at the quarter level, there were multiple years in which you won (as in "profited") over 6 figures in each year?"

He has not responded with any clarification.

[Alan Mendelson]

I also noticed that Arc has not responded with any clarification. I believe he meant a total of six figures over the period and not each year.

[Count Room]

I'm sure Alan is right; making six figures per year at $1 or less VP would require a man with X-Ray eyes.

It might have been possible to do in Arizona back in 2010-2011 for there were a bank of 106% (yes, 106%!) payback VP machines there but they were removed last year. (9/6/5 DB with super large payouts for aces and special quads)

[redietz]

Arc meant over the entire period of time. I think he was pretty clear -- it didn't even enter my mind to interpret it any other way.

He considers himself a "part-timer," and I'm sure that precludes making six figures per year.

[arcimede$]

I also noticed that Arc has not responded with any clarification. I believe he meant a total of six figures over the period and not each year.

Yes, if I could find a quarter game that makes over $100K I wouldn't bother playing at the dollar level.

[Vegas Vic]

Yes, if I could find a quarter game that makes over $100K I wouldn't bother playing at the dollar level.

Even playing part time, whatever that is, at the quarter level, would take an unbelievably amount of pure history-making-you've-got-to-be-kidding luck to accumulate even a huge profit. Is this $100K profit or just winnings? ("winnings" don't mean a thing).

[arcimede$]

Even playing part time, whatever that is, at the quarter level, would take an unbelievably amount of pure history-making-you've-got-to-be-kidding luck to accumulate even a huge profit. Is this $100K profit or just winnings? ("winnings" don't mean a thing).

Profit.

When my wife's father was still alive we were sitting with him one evening and the subject of our gambling came up. This was when we were still quarter players. I mentioned we have put $10K through the machines the previous day. You should have seen his jaw drop. I tried to explain the difference between wins/losses and coin-in but I don't think it really sunk in.

[Alan Mendelson]

For the math impaired (me) and for slow players (me, as in "slow" for playing hands) how many hands at 25 cent video poker do you need to play through $10K and how long did it take you to do that in a one-day session (hours)?

By the way I am willing to accept that you had a profit of $100K during this period because it supports Singer's claim of a profit of almost a million playing at much higher limits over more years.

[arcimede$]

For the math impaired (me) and for slow players (me, as in "slow" for playing hands) how many hands at 25 cent video poker do you need to play through $10K and how long did it take you to do that in a one-day session (hours)?

Each hand is $1.25 so you divide that into $10K and you should get 8,000. That was about 4,000 apiece. The machines we played were not very fast and were coin-droppers to boot. So, about 600-650 hands/hour which is about 7 hours of play.

By the way I am willing to accept that you had a profit of $100K during this period because it supports Singer's claim of a profit of almost a million playing at much higher limits over more years.

Nope, not in the least. Singer played almost entirely on negative machines. You have to believe he was unbelievably lucky for 10 straight years. You can believe it if you want, I prefer to use common sense.

[Alan Mendelson]

Ten hands per minute dropping quarters? Really?

[arcimede$]

Ten hands per minute dropping quarters? Really?

They only spit out quarters over 1000 credits. They took bills so you didn't need to feed quarters and they they didn't spit out for anything except larger payouts.

[jatki]

After not reading for a few days, I'm seeing nothing helpful in this thread. The people playing positive ev videopoker either claim they win or give the impression they do but have nothing to support it, Alan says he plays negative games and loses, an there's the never-ending talk about Singer winning on those awful negative games he plays. Add me into the mix too. I've already said I lose on the positive games and win on the negative ones.

The only one I believe here is Alan, even over me if that's possible. The rest of you are so caught up in this + vs. - play must yield equivalent results, that you think nothing else is possible except for the one guy who admits to losing. Makes for lively discussion I guess, but don't think for one minute that anyone's learning anything from it.