Video Poker Trucks Run Over Everybody

[arcimede$]

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?

Alan, it is you having the problem. I guess your memory must be failing you. I've stated about a zillion times already that anyone playing any ridiculous strategy can walk away a winner occasionally. I thought we had put that question behind already. But no, you keep resorting to that issue over and over again. Write down somewhere ... "arc realizes anyone can win in the short term".

I've always been referring to winning on a negative machines over time. Got it?

That is what you are claiming your win/loss strategies will do. You have stated it many times. And, that is what I'm saying is not doable because it would mean you're return was better than than the optimal return. Sorry, no betting strategy can accomplish that task. It has been PROVEN mathematically which means it is just as valid as 2+2=4.

[Alan Mendelson]

No Arc, we are not talking about how it is possible to win at a negative expectation game. What I am saying is that winning at a negative expectation game has NOTHING to do with violating the house edge, or the game's return or anything else. Winning has nothing to do with violating the math.

Now you are being a troll.

[arcimede$]

No Arc, we are not talking about how it is possible to win at a negative expectation game. What I am saying is that winning at a negative expectation game has NOTHING to do with violating the house edge, or the game's return or anything else. Winning has nothing to do with violating the math.

Now you are being a troll.

Well maybe you can explain it to me, Alan. Here's the way the math works. When you claim you can win over time the math calculates that as a return of >100%. That is, more money comes out of the machines then goes into them. At least that is how I define 'winning". Now, if the ER of a machine is <100% that should mean that the best one can do is lose a some amount of money.

Therefore you are stating that you can beat the ER because any value >100% is obviously better than any ER which is <100%.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you are full of it.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you are full of it.

So, when presented with undeniable facts this is your response? Interesting.

[Alan Mendelson]

Your facts have nothing to do with the discussion. You are creating new issues instead of answering the question or responding to the issue. The issue is this: walking away with a profit does not challenge the math of the game, the expected return, the house edge or anything else. It only means you walked away with a profit.

That's it. So stop.

[arcimede$]

Your facts have nothing to do with the discussion. You are creating new issues instead of answering the question or responding to the issue. The issue is this: walking away with a profit does not challenge the math of the game, the expected return, the house edge or anything else. It only means you walked away with a profit.

That's it. So stop.

Yes Alan, doing it one time doesn't mean anything as I've stated a zillion times. However, claiming a person can do it continually does challenge the math. You've been claiming a person can do it enough to make them a long term winner. That is nonsense.

[Alan Mendelson]

You know what's also nonsense, Arc? Telling us you lose 55% of your sessions, winning 45%, and saying you have a six figure income playing 25-cent and $1 video poker after about six years. But I am not going to challenge you on it. Instead, I am going to accept it so that Singer's claim of winning $990,000 over ten years playing primarily $10 and $25 video seems reasonable.

[arcimede$]

You know what's also nonsense, Arc? Telling us you lose 55% of your sessions, winning 45%, and saying you have a six figure income playing 25-cent and $1 video poker after about six years.

Why is it nonsense? As long as my average win is substantially bigger than my average loss the results come out just fine. This is no different than many businesses. You may have a lot of expenses, but if your income is greater than those expenses you have a profit. And, as a businessman you know this to be true.

So, it appears you're just throwing crap at a wall right now and hoping some of it sticks.

[Alan Mendelson]

No Arc. I really want you to have won $100,000+ It just means more support for Singer's claims about his nearly million dollar win.

[jatki]

All I can say is that it looks like arc doesn't want any scenario where anyone is able to win on negative machines over a long term. We all understand how the math works, but geez, I've done very well on a 99% game over 15 years only because I tried to stop playing at being ahead by varying amounts. Most of the time I was able to do that and the few times I waivered away I always ended up losing because I was a little too selfish. I don't consider any of it as beating the sacred math, not by a long shot. But I am doing better than optimal because optimal is only a theory isn't it? I actually consider my bonuspoker experience to be more on track with expectation than how badly I'm doing on the fpdw machines. Yes the math is there and yes it means a lot. But it doesn't mean it has got to be that way, and for someone like Singer to go out and teach his negative machine strategy to other people, it is not in the least bit wrong for him to do that because he's learned how to quit. As I asked earlier, if I win $300, $300, and $500 in 3 bonuspoker visits, where is it written that I HAVE to lose at least $1100 to make up for it because the game only calculates out to 99%. It doesn't, and in fact, I'm a believer in how these visits can always be broken up into their individually plotted points, while it's the math books that say they must be strung together. That's under a controlled circumstance. Videopoker has much more going on than that because there's a HUMAN making individual decisions.

Summary: no, absolutely NO, to the idea that the game's optimal ev cannot be bettered with actual results.

[arcimede$]

No Arc. I really want you to have won $100,000+ It just means more support for Singer's claims about his nearly million dollar win.

No it doesn't. As long as Singer claims his wins came on negative return games then my claims of winning with a large edge have no bearing on his claims. If he turns around and tells us that he was just kidding about the negative games then we would have to reassess his claims. For now, nothing about my success tells you anything about Singer's claims.

[Alan Mendelson]

No it doesn't. As long as Singer claims his wins came on negative return games then my claims of winning with a large edge have no bearing on his claims. If he turns around and tells us that he was just kidding about the negative games then we would have to reassess his claims. For now, nothing about my success tells you anything about Singer's claims.

Really, Arc? That's all I'm going to say. I defer to the comments above made by Jatki: "All I can say is that it looks like arc doesn't want any scenario where anyone is able to win on negative machines over a long term."

[arcimede$]

All I can say is that it looks like arc doesn't want any scenario where anyone is able to win on negative machines over a long term. We all understand how the math works, but geez, I've done very well on a 99% game over 15 years only because I tried to stop playing at being ahead by varying amounts. Most of the time I was able to do that and the few times I waivered away I always ended up losing because I was a little too selfish. I don't consider any of it as beating the sacred math, not by a long shot. But I am doing better than optimal because optimal is only a theory isn't it?

No, it is mathematics based on games being random.

I actually consider my bonuspoker experience to be more on track with expectation than how badly I'm doing on the fpdw machines. Yes the math is there and yes it means a lot. But it doesn't mean it has got to be that way, and for someone like Singer to go out and teach his negative machine strategy to other people, it is not in the least bit wrong for him to do that because he's learned how to quit. As I asked earlier, if I win $300, $300, and $500 in 3 bonuspoker visits, where is it written that I HAVE to lose at least $1100 to make up for it because the game only calculates out to 99%. It doesn't, and in fact, I'm a believer in how these visits can always be broken up into their individually plotted points, while it's the math books that say they must be strung together. That's under a controlled circumstance. Videopoker has much more going on than that because there's a HUMAN making individual decisions.

Summary: no, absolutely NO, to the idea that the game's optimal ev cannot be bettered with actual results.

Over the short term yes ... over the long term the chances get smaller and smaller. Just like my mention of the lottery on another thread. Just because something has a non-zero probability does not mean it's a wise investment of your money. During that run of losses I had earlier this year I was ahead in almost none of them. These claims that people always get ahead at some time during a session must be from playing on another planet. It certainly has never been true for me.

[arcimede$]

Really, Arc? That's all I'm going to say. I defer to the comments above made by Jatki: "All I can say is that it looks like arc doesn't want any scenario where anyone is able to win on negative machines over a long term."

It has nothing to do with wants/wishes/whatever ... it is simply mathematical reality. You are living in fantasy land if you it think has anything to do with me. I'm just the messenger. Sorry if you don't like the message.

If you want to live in fantasy land I would suggest buying power ball tickets. There's a lot more money to win living in that fantasy world.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, You're just not making sense. You have a long string of losses yet you end up a winner. You lose 55% of the time on positive expectation machines no less, but your 45% of wins over time make you a winner. It's okay for you to win $100,000+ in six years playing 25-cent and $1 video poker but Singer who plays most of his action on $10 video poker can't win almost a million dollars over ten years. You say it is possible to win on a negative expectation game in one session, but you say it's impossible to win on a negative expectation game over the long term -- forgetting perhaps that the long term is a combination of short terms?

Sorry, this just does not make sense at all.

But hopefully you now understand that "actual results" can differ from "expected results" because that's just how it is in the real world.

[arcimede$]

Arc, You're just not making sense. You have a long string of losses yet you end up a winner.

Yes, because I've also had strings of winners.

You lose 55% of the time on positive expectation machines no less, but your 45% of wins over time make you a winner.

Yes, because I win more on average than I lose. You can't lose a RF worth of credits in one hand, but sure can win them.

It's okay for you to win $100,000+ in six years playing 25-cent and $1 video poker but Singer who plays most of his action on $10 video poker can't win almost a million dollars over ten years.

Because I play positive return games and Singer doesn't. Already explained to you many times. Also, he doesn't average $10 denom ... more like $2.

You say it is possible to win on a negative expectation game in one session, but you say it's impossible to win on a negative expectation game over the long term -- forgetting perhaps that the long term is a combination of short terms?

Possible does not mean probable. The chances of winning or losing multiple session is very low. Just like I followed my 8 out 9 losses with 7 out of 9 wins. You seem to be unaware that VP really is based on random events. You seem to think that bad hands no longer appear when you set win/loss goals. What can I say. It's complete nonsense.

Sorry, this just does not make sense at all.

But hopefully you now understand that "actual results" can differ from "expected results" because that's just how it is in the real world.

It all makes perfect sense and I've explained it all to you many times. When are you going to start thinking rationally? It appears you are not even trying to understand the subject matter at all. You just want something to be true and are willing to ignore all relevant facts in order to maintain that belief.

[arcimede$]

Here's a thought, Alan. Take your questions to any University in your area. I hear there's quite a few in Southern California. Talk to someone in the math dept. Jot down the answers. Now, try another one. You are a reporter, right? Get back to us with the results.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I don't have to research it with a math department. I know too many people who win playing on negative expectation games. And a royal on a negative expectation game pays the same as a royal on one of your positive games.

You still cannot separate one concept from another. You still can't allow someone to win on a negative expectation game even if you concede they can win a session. You still can't allow a player to make a choice about when to cash out or when to stop feeding the losses.

In other words: you can't reason this. You abide only by the "expected" and never the "actual."

Did you mention living in a fantasy world?

[arcimede$]

Arc, I don't have to research it with a math department. I know too many people who win playing on negative expectation games. And a royal on a negative expectation game pays the same as a royal on one of your positive games.

Like I said ... you don't want to know the truth.

You still cannot separate one concept from another. You still can't allow someone to win on a negative expectation game even if you concede they can win a session. You still can't allow a player to make a choice about when to cash out or when to stop feeding the losses.

I allow for all of that, Alan. I simply am pointing out that the odds of remaining a winner dwindle significantly as time goes by. It's like the baseball analogy I used previously. According to Alan a baseball player who quit playing if he got a hit his first time to the plate would average better than one who continued to play an entire game. Yes, it's completely silly but it's the exact same claim you are making.

In other words: you can't reason this. You abide only by the "expected" and never the "actual."

Did you mention living in a fantasy world?

Yes I did. You continue to do it in spite of being given the facts.