Video Poker Trucks Run Over Everybody

[arcimede$]

Arc, this is where, Im afraid, you do not account for what I would describe as "the human factor." I see the human factor at work all the time in casinos. I see people playing negative games, hit a winner, and leave. Keep doing that enough times and you will have a long term profit.

Yup, the casinos are worried to death these hoards of "human factors" will bankrupt them. Alan, you're regressing into the same silly nonsense that you've been shown is nothing but a fantasy. Can it happen? Sure can. But it is extremely rare and no one can do anything to bring it about.

I've said before that if I gave myself from tight loss limits and left when I had a profit I could become an overall winner on a negative game such as 8/5 Bonus.

Da plane ... da plane ...

There have been countless times when Ive watched average Joe players hit a winner and picked themselves out of the seat and leave with a profit. That human factor does not appear in your math, does it Arc?

Of course it does. As does all the times when that human sits down and loses his butt. You can't change the frequency of the cards you are dealt. To be a winner at negative games you must get results that are above average frequency. There's no master plan that makes that happen.

[jatki]

I have no problem with reasonable criticism. Let me know when you have some.



A troll is a well known internet term. If you don't understand it then educate yourself. When a person behaves like a troll then they will be called a troll. Don't like it? Well, quit acting like a troll.

Obviously, you don't understand random events. What you call luck is just a set of random events that happens to produce winning results. These events are actually predicted by the math. So, what you want to call luck is really just predictable random fluctuations. One things trolls often do is jump into a discussion they don't understand and attack others. Hmmmmm.

You are a troubled person. I do understand the discussion and you do not know everything, that included. Why do you have to spoil discussions for others everytime you don't agree with something someone says and have to take it so personally? And please, STOP THE NAME-CALLING!!

[Alan Mendelson]

Jatki: Im not sure I understand the question? And I don't think I can answer it because I am not using a fixed "bankroll" for play.

If I had a fixed bankroll the way a professional gambler does, I guess I could figure out my "return" after a year. But my bankroll is not fixed and comes out of "recreational dollars."

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: "Yup, the casinos are worried to death these hoards of "human factors" will bankrupt them. Alan, you're regressing into the same silly nonsense that you've been shown is nothing but a fantasy. Can it happen? Sure can. But it is extremely rare and no one can do anything to bring it about."

Actually, Arc, the casinos are concerned. This is why they do everything they can to keep you in your seats longer, to keep you playing, and to keep you coming back. This is why they have "points" and players clubs, and cocktail waitresses bringing you drinks, and why some casinos will even have food delivered to your machine (they do it if you ask at Caesars and at Rincon and I've seen it), and this is why when you get a handpay the slot person says "do it again." Everything they do is designed to fight the "human factor" which tells some to get outta Dodge with the money that just got counted out in your hand.

And this is why you play "credits" and not "dollars." (As soon as I sit down at a machine the first thing I do is change the display to "dollars" instead of "credits".)

And this is why the industry switched to ticket in/ticket out to make it easier for you to put your ticket into another machine, and there is no time for you to count out the coins in the hopper or to carry your coins to a cashier.

The entire casino industry is well aware of the human factor, Arc.

[arcimede$]

You are a troubled person.

Give it break. This is the kind of statement a troll makes.

I do understand the discussion and you do not know everything, that included. Why do you have to spoil discussions for others everytime you don't agree with something someone says and have to take it so personally? And please, STOP THE NAME-CALLING!!

Oh, so you would rather someone present false information and not have that pointed out. Do you always support liars?

[arcimede$]

Actually, Arc, the casinos are concerned. This is why they do everything they can to keep you in your seats longer, to keep you playing, and to keep you coming back. This is why they have "points" and players clubs, and cocktail waitresses bringing you drinks, and why some casinos will even have food delivered to your machine (they do it if you ask at Caesars and at Rincon and I've seen it), and this is why when you get a handpay the slot person says "do it again." Everything they do is designed to fight the "human factor" which tells some to get outta Dodge with the money that just got counted out in your hand.

Nope, all they are trying to do is get people to gamble more. The more people gamble the more money they make. They actually understand the simple math behind VP. If 10000 people walk in and play your method the casinos know they will still make money. It's all random, Alan.

[Alan Mendelson]

Nope, all they are trying to do is get people to gamble more. The more people gamble the more money they make. They actually understand the simple math behind VP. If 10000 people walk in and play your method the casinos know they will still make money. It's all random, Alan.

Yes Arc, you said it. But if someone gambled less, and kept their "wins" the casinos would lose. And its the same thing for your sacred positive expectation games. First, the casinos hope you (the casino population, not you personally Arc) will not know how to properly play, and they hope you do not get lucky, and they hope you will keep playing so that you are forced to leave during a "loss period."

The few positive expectation games in a casino are "loss leaders" and even with a loss leader there are profits to be made. For example: the 55% of sessions you lose.

[arcimede$]

Yes Arc, you said it. But if someone gambled less, and kept their "wins" the casinos would lose.

Wrong. The casinos will make their money because they have the edge over 99.9% of the gamblers. Even ones who think they can defeat that edge with win/loss goals.

And its the same thing for your sacred positive expectation games. First, the casinos hope you (the casino population, not you personally Arc) will not know how to properly play, and they hope you do not get lucky, and they hope you will keep playing so that you are forced to leave during a "loss period."

The few positive expectation games in a casino are "loss leaders" and even with a loss leader there are profits to be made. For example: the 55% of sessions you lose.

The casinos don't "profit" from my 55% losing sessions if they lose more over my 45% winning sessions. Now, the casinos are often willing to accept a few winning players if they don't impact the bottom line too much.

And yes, the casinos still profit overall on most positive return games (there have been exceptions) because most gamblers don't understand proper strategy.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, just be honest here and this will end the discussion: you are simply saying that a person can't win at a negative expectation game such as 9/6 jacks or 8/5 Bonus no matter what they do. Is that the bottom line?

[arcimede$]

Arc, just be honest here and this will end the discussion: you are simply saying that a person can't win at a negative expectation game such as 9/6 jacks or 8/5 Bonus no matter what they do. Is that the bottom line?

I'm saying it is highly improbable they will overcome the casino edge over time and the vast majority of players will lose.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm saying it is highly improbable they will overcome the casino edge over time and the vast majority of players will lose.

Well, guess what, Arc? Players who decide to pick themselves up out of a seat and leave with a "win" don't care about the "vast majority." They say to themselves "I have this money and Im not giving it back." It really gets back to Singer's basic win goal strategy.

And if more players did it -- heck if everyone did it -- the casinos could not keep their doors open except for the very unlucky.
Remember what gaming author Victor Royer said, that at some point in their visit 86% of casino goers are ahead at some point. See it here: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id73.html You will have to scroll down the page.

[arcimede$]

Well, guess what, Arc? Players who decide to pick themselves up out of a seat and leave with a "win" don't care about the "vast majority." They say to themselves "I have this money and Im not giving it back." It really gets back to Singer's basic win goal strategy.

It all works just fine until it doesn't. The times you don't reach your win goal and instead hit your loss goal. Over time it all averages out to the ER of the game.

And if more players did it -- heck if everyone did it -- the casinos could not keep their doors open except for the very unlucky.
Remember what gaming author Victor Royer said, that at some point in their visit 86% of casino goers are ahead at some point. See it here: http://www.alanbestbuys.com/id73.html You will have to scroll down the page.

Yes, they may be a few credits ahead. That doesn't mean a thing since the 14% that are never ahead total more than all those wins. And, when you average it all out you find the casino edge is exactly the same.

Sorry Alan, There's a reason the ER is known as the "optimal return". There's no strategy that can beat it over time.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I don't know if you are trying to snow me, or if you really don't understand your own use of these terms?

"Over time it all averages out to the ER of the game."
"you find the casino edge is exactly the same."
"There's a reason the ER is known as the "optimal return".

No one is challenging the "expected return." The casino has an edge based on its pay tables or pays, and no one challenges that either. And no one challenges that optimal return is the expected return.

All anyone is saying -- but you won't listen -- is that if you differ in your play you could do worse or you could do better. Apparently it is a great sin if you "differ." And you cannot deal with or accept or cope with the reality that someone who "differs" might do better.

Let me put it another way: if you play by the math, you will get what the math says you will get. If you do something different, you will do better or worse. Someone (this is going to hurt you, but it's what Singer says) who decides to leave with a "win" can beat the math. That doesn't mean the math is wrong, it just means that they did better than the math says they'll do.

But we're not speaking the same language, are we?

[jatki]

Give it break. This is the kind of statement a troll makes.



Oh, so you would rather someone present false information and not have that pointed out. Do you always support liars?

That's a lie. I've written nothing false. It's just that you don't like what I wrote because it doesn't jive with what you believe in.

Why do you bother here if open discussions trouble you so? Is it because you've not received the reception you desire on LV A, and one more like that will drive you crazy?

[arcimede$]

Arc, I don't know if you are trying to snow me, or if you really don't understand your own use of these terms?



No one is challenging the "expected return." The casino has an edge based on its pay tables or pays, and no one challenges that either. And no one challenges that optimal return is the expected return.

Then why do you keep claiming you can win on negative machines with win/loss goals? That IS challenging the ER. You can't claim you will win on negative machines without overcoming the casino edge.

All anyone is saying -- but you won't listen -- is that if you differ in your play you could do worse or you could do better. Apparently it is a great sin if you "differ." And you cannot deal with or accept or cope with the reality that someone who "differs" might do better.

Let me put it another way: if you play by the math, you will get what the math says you will get. If you do something different, you will do better or worse.

Once again you come right back and claim you can do better than "optimal". No you can't ... not over time. There's a reason it is called optimal, Alan. You claim I'm not listening but it is you who is denying reality.

Someone (this is going to hurt you, but it's what Singer says) who decides to leave with a "win" can beat the math. That doesn't mean the math is wrong, it just means that they did better than the math says they'll do.

But we're not speaking the same language, are we?

See, here you go again claiming you can beat the optimal ER. It has nothing to do with language, it's your inability to understand what the math is telling you. You cannot improve the ER with a betting system. Win/loss goals are nothing but a betting system. What you are saying is pure bunk. If you want to believe in fantasies that is your right, but when you start making silly claims that these fantasies make sense in the real world then you will be challenged.

[arcimede$]

That's a lie. I've written nothing false. It's just that you don't like what I wrote because it doesn't jive with what you believe in.

You've claimed I'm a "troubled person" yet you don't know me at all. Sorry, but it's a lie. Making claims about things you don't know is lying. Just like Singer constantly does.

Why do you bother here if open discussions trouble you so? Is it because you've not received the reception you desire on LV A, and one more like that will drive you crazy?

And see, here you go again with the same nonsense. Why is it you feel you need to speculate about other people? You come on here and claim folks are lying and you didn't expect to get some push-back? I think it's you who is a little off kilter.

[jatki]

If you can read without applying your own personal spin you'd see that I asked a couple questions of you and did not speculate. Just like the question about 8 out of 9 that is like pulling your teeth out for you to answer. IMHO, when you feel pressure you become defensive. Alan has brought up many good questions of you himself, and all you can do is tell him he's not listening or it's silly nonsense. I don't think you get it. There are people who believe what YOU say is silly nonsense because you can't think outside of what your calculator tells you. Why don't you just accept that people have different opinions and refrain from making yourself look bad by needing to have it only your way? I've heard your points ad nausea and Alan and others must be tired of your repititious spews, which always seem to be littered with condescending attitude. Please give it a rest and everyone will get along a little better I hope.

[arcimede$]

Sounds like a whole boatload of projection. All just just did was describe exactly what you've been doing since you decide to come in here call me a liar. Quite humorous.

It's pretty obvious that you dislike anyone who has been successful. Sad, but pretty obvious nonetheless.

Finally, I can only be amazed that there are still people in this world that believe that math is somehow subjective. I guess they believe 2+2 = 5 on some days, maybe 6 on another day and just possibly 4 once in awhile. Yes, it truly is silly nonsense. Sorry if you can't accept reality. However, your lack of knowledge will not stop me from stating facts.

[jatki]

OK you win I lose. Let's forget about it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you are really starting to frustrate me. I can't believe you wrote this:

Then why do you keep claiming you can win on negative machines with win/loss goals? That IS challenging the ER. You can't claim you will win on negative machines without overcoming the casino edge.

For the umpteenth time, walking away with a profit has nothing to do with challenging the ER or overcoming the casino edge. Do you not understand the concept? What is the problem here that you are having?