Of Math and Men

[arcimede$]

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.

Well, I don't believe a word you wrote.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, it doesn't really matter if you believe a word that jatki wrote. He's giving us, I believe, an honest appraisal of the discussion. And I think he is applying his own experience to what is being discussed.

He said he won for the most part playing a negative expectation game, and lost playing a positive game. That is a perfectly reasonable statement to make and I believe it too. First, I believe you can win playing negative game. It all depends how you play, when you "cash out" and if you get lucky playing.

The "math" gives us a road map for "casino action" but it doesn't always define a player's actual results. Again, we are getting back to "expected return" vs "actual return." And that is something you will not acknowledge.

Well, maybe you do acknowledge it because even you admit to having losing sessions. And I think that's the point. If your losing sessions on your positive expectation game add up to more than the winning sessions you will lose over time regardless of what the math says.

[arcimede$]

Arc, it doesn't really matter if you believe a word that jatki wrote. He's giving us, I believe, an honest appraisal of the discussion. And I think he is applying his own experience to what is being discussed.

He said he won for the most part playing a negative expectation game, and lost playing a positive game. That is a perfectly reasonable statement to make and I believe it too. First, I believe you can win playing negative game. It all depends how you play, when you "cash out" and if you get lucky playing.

He may be relating his own experience. I have no problem with that. But, inferring that someone else is lying because they don't share the same experience is not called for.

The "math" gives us a road map for "casino action" but it doesn't always define a player's actual results. Again, we are getting back to "expected return" vs "actual return." And that is something you will not acknowledge.

No, I've acknowledged results vary many times. How many times will I have to repeat it before you quit with this nonsense.

Well, maybe you do acknowledge it because even you admit to having losing sessions. And I think that's the point. If your losing sessions on your positive expectation game add up to more than the winning sessions you will lose over time regardless of what the math says.

That's true, but if a person playing with a good edge has a 95% of winnings adding up over time while a person playing a negative game has a 5% chance, which do you think is a better approach?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, what does this mean? That's true, but if a person playing with a good edge has a 95% of winnings adding up over time while a person playing a negative game has a 5% chance, which do you think is a better approach?

I don't follow at all.

[arcimede$]

Arc, what does this mean? That's true, but if a person playing with a good edge has a 95% of winnings adding up over time while a person playing a negative game has a 5% chance, which do you think is a better approach?

I don't follow at all.

That's because you haven't been trying to understand. You get caught up in possibilities without understanding probabilities.

When you claim a person can win playing a negative game or lose playing a positive game that is true. In other words, that is a true possibility. The problem is it does not actually happen enough to matter. The probability is that the person playing the positive game will win more often and lose less than a person playing a negative game.

Over time we all approach the expected return based on the machines we play and strategy we use. If that ER is 99% then over time your chances of being ahead fall to a very low number (like 5% or less). If the ER is strongly positive then the chances of being ahead grow until it is very high (95% or more).

Win/loss goals only change the amount you play (which is good if you are playing a negative game). They do not change the ER.

[Alan Mendelson]

That's because you haven't been trying to understand. You get caught up in possibilities without understanding probabilities.

When you claim a person can win playing a negative game or lose playing a positive game that is true. In other words, that is a true possibility. The problem is it does not actually happen enough to matter. The probability is that the person playing the positive game will win more often and lose less than a person playing a negative game.

Over time we all approach the expected return based on the machines we play and strategy we use. If that ER is 99% then over time your chances of being ahead fall to a very low number (like 5% or less). If the ER is strongly positive then the chances of being ahead grow until it is very high (95% or more).

Win/loss goals only change the amount you play (which is good if you are playing a negative game). They do not change the ER.

Here we go again. You're right -- no strategy will ever change the EXPECTED RETURN. But what you do as an individual will affect your ACTUAL RETURN.

If you play a negative expectation game and decide to cash out when you win -- and if you do it enough times over enough sessions -- your ACTUAL RETURN can beat the EXPECTED RETURN. You don't acknowledge that, do you?

[arcimede$]

Here we go again. You're right -- no strategy will ever change the EXPECTED RETURN. But what you do as an individual will affect your ACTUAL RETURN.

If you play a negative expectation game and decide to cash out when you win -- and if you do it enough times over enough sessions -- your ACTUAL RETURN can beat the EXPECTED RETURN. You don't acknowledge that, do you?

Over the short term it can, but it probably won't. Once again the probability is you will lose over time even though there is a possibility you might win. It's that old 95/5% thing.

[Alan Mendelson]

Short term, long term. Isn't the long term made up of a bunch of short terms ??

[arcimede$]

Short term, long term. Isn't the long term made up of a bunch of short terms ??

Yup, and you can't win every one of those "short term" sessions.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yup, and you can't win every one of those "short term" sessions.

You don't have to win every one of the sessions just as you win only 45% of your sessions.

[jatki]

You don't have to win every one of the sessions just as you win only 45% of your sessions.

I somehow expect that won't sit too well with him. But let me see if I have this right. Arcimedes says that, because you're playing a 99.5% game instead of a 100.5% game, you only have a 5% chance of winning after some term. But play a game that's only 1% higher, and you will have a 95% chance of being a winner over that timeframe. Wow, that's some math he's using there. 1% = 90%. Now what about a visit by visit basis, what happens then? I still don't see why I should lose on my next visit because I'm playing a game that's 1% lower than another. Then how the heck am I ahead on bonuspoker and behind on fpdw? I attribute it to understanding that I should quit playing for the visit if and when I get ahead at whatever amount I select before I play. I do that on fpdw too, only I rarely seem to get anything ahead on that damn game.

I can only summize that some people firmly believe this will happen and others believe that will happen. But the only thing that's important is what DOES happen, and no one can say anything about that other than guess by the numbers on a visit by visit basis. The notion that this long term defines all the short terms or that positive games will return more than negative games, today, are nothing but opinions based on what's expected because of the math. In other words, it means nothing because the math cannot account for human decisions. Arcimedes seems to think that, just because I won today, yesterday and the day before on a negative game that I HAVE TO lose tomorrow on it, and that loss I guess is supposed to be more than all three winning visits, just so I can stay in tune with the math somehow. That's total hogwash for sure. How does he know how our rabbit's feet will react?

[arcimede$]

I somehow expect that won't sit too well with him. But let me see if I have this right. Arcimedes says that, because you're playing a 99.5% game instead of a 100.5% game, you only have a 5% chance of winning after some term. But play a game that's only 1% higher, and you will have a 95% chance of being a winner over that timeframe. Wow, that's some math he's using there. 1% = 90%. Now what about a visit by visit basis, what happens then? I still don't see why I should lose on my next visit because I'm playing a game that's 1% lower than another. Then how the heck am I ahead on bonuspoker and behind on fpdw? I attribute it to understanding that I should quit playing for the visit if and when I get ahead at whatever amount I select before I play. I do that on fpdw too, only I rarely seem to get anything ahead on that damn game.

Well, first of all we were referring to a 99% game, not 99.5% when the 5% number was computed. Yes, it will also eventually apply to the 99.5% game as it must based on the math. The probability increases over time. Eventually it will get to 99.9% and then even higher. It's called math. You should learn something about it before making statements about it.

As for your own results, they are simply short term variation. And yes, short term could be quite a bit of play. However, your FPDW results are interesting in that it demonstrates that Alan's supposed quit while you're ahead strategy doesn't work if you don't get ahead. Over time a player will see times they start losing immediately and continue losing. It turns out that for short sessions it's more likely to lose at FPDW than many other games. However, the losses are usually quite low compared to other games. And, when you hit the quad deuces it makes up for those small losses. I'd guess you've had lower than average luck at hitting the ducks. That would account for your losing.

I can only summize that some people firmly believe this will happen and others believe that will happen. But the only thing that's important is what DOES happen, and no one can say anything about that other than guess by the numbers on a visit by visit basis. The notion that this long term defines all the short terms or that positive games will return more than negative games, today, are nothing but opinions based on what's expected because of the math. In other words, it means nothing because the math cannot account for human decisions. Arcimedes seems to think that, just because I won today, yesterday and the day before on a negative game that I HAVE TO lose tomorrow on it, and that loss I guess is supposed to be more than all three winning visits, just so I can stay in tune with the math somehow. That's total hogwash for sure. How does he know how our rabbit's feet will react?

Will you eventually lose? The probability is near 100% that you will.

BTW, the math does not care about human decisions. It is simply telling us that random events average out over time. Kind of like the drought hitting the US this year. Eventually, these things occur. They have in the past and they will again in the future. It's simply one of the possible situations. Same holds for VP. Over time the possible events do occur. That works out well when those events lead to good paying hands and not so well when they don't.

And, your beliefs don't matter.

[jatki]

You say it's called math, yet I didn't I didn't see any of it in support of your claim that 1% = 90%. Is that the new math or something? I know I'm old but I remember the basics.

When I play fpdw I don't play with any goals like I do on bonuspoker. I just play and play until my eyes shut. When you're calling it short term variation then I have to say it is now YOU who are making silly claims because you have no knowledge yet of how much I've played it. The answer would be about 15 years, and maybe 10 million or more hands. So in the face of more facts, are you now going to say that I make too many errors? I'd say no more than you do on whatever you play. So you see, the math you place all of your marbles in does not work in EITHER game I play, and can you finally accept that it is that way for others also even if you aren't happy about it?

[arcimede$]

You say it's called math, yet I didn't I didn't see any of it in support of your claim that 1% = 90%. Is that the new math or something? I know I'm old but I remember the basics.

No, it is simple statistics. probably freshman college level stuff. If you aren't willing to spend any time understanding even the simple stuff why do you make comments about it? Do you often brag about your ignorance?

When I play fpdw I don't play with any goals like I do on bonuspoker. I just play and play until my eyes shut. When you're calling it short term variation then I have to say it is now YOU who are making silly claims because you have no knowledge yet of how much I've played it. The answer would be about 15 years, and maybe 10 million or more hands. So in the face of more facts, are you now going to say that I make too many errors? I'd say no more than you do on whatever you play. So you see, the math you place all of your marbles in does not work in EITHER game I play, and can you finally accept that it is that way for others also even if you aren't happy about it?

If you play "until my eyes shut", then you are likely making many errors. I suspect we now know why you haven't been successful. Most people don't understand their error costs and, yes, that includes many APers. That is why I have always said gamblers need to find the biggest edge they can.

[Alan Mendelson]

Wonderful, you finally said it, Arc, even if you didn't mean to and even if you don't believe it. You wrote:

"the math does not care about human decisions. It is simply telling us that random events average out over time."

You see Arc, people do not make random choices when they play video poker, or even when they play in a casino. They choose everything -- when to play, when to stop, what game, what cards, what denomination. Hence the choices of the human being can be used to beat the math.

I know, you'll just say it's either random or fits a bell curve or you'll come up with some coin flip analogy. We've heard it all before.

[Count Room]

Alan:

I read your thread on craps and it was very interesting, but why would you say there is no way to win at craps long term while video poker would be winnable at -EV? I ask this as a friendly Devil's Advocate.

[Alan Mendelson]

I read your thread on craps and it was very interesting, but why would you say there is no way to win at craps long term while video poker would be winnable at -EV? I ask this as a friendly Devil's Advocate.

Well, you can win at craps if you get lucky and you hit the big jackpots, which is what the article was about on this page: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id139.html . The fire bet pays $10,000 for a $10 bet. Even video poker doesn't have a return like that. Also in craps it is very common for players to "quit when ahead" which somehow is a strategy that doesn't hold any value in the video poker world (why?).

Otherwise, the math will bust you at craps just as it will at video poker.

[Count Room]

Well, Arc is saying simply that quitting while ahead is a misnomer when the game is +EV...but I'm sure you already understand this argument.

Ironically, I am about $2,000 ahead lifetime for casino craps ...wish I could say the same for VP.

[Alan Mendelson]

I am so far behind playing craps... I don't want to even think about it. And I am a conservative craps player and always was meaning I was not a "crazy crapper" betting the long shots. I even shun hardway bets.

But one thing I was told a long time ago that was my downfall: I did not walk away from the table after a monster roll and I kept playing, and eventually gave it back.

I'm not even going to discuss the subject of "dice influencing" because while I believe in the theory behind it and the science behind it, it's one thing to say it is possible and it's another thing to actually do it. And that is much like the theory behind winning at video poker. The theory says one thing but doing it is something else.

[Count Room]

I haven't played craps for many years, but used to 'roll the bones' at LV Golden Nugget and Binions along with a couple of Midwestern casinos. I played it just like Phil Ivey does: Keep putting odds on the Pass and Come bets until it all sevens out. Yes...I do see the disadvantage of having to make a point twice compared to place bets but it is slightly better EV.