Putting your faith in "the math." Really???

[Alan Mendelson]

You keep avoiding the question. We know you've had $20K RFs in VP and you claim to be a net loser. I believe you've also claimed to be a net loser at craps. It appears those win goals aren't working.

Win goals work fine when you reach them. I have high win goals. Rob chastised me for not walking when I hit the $25 straight flush. Well, the payoff on the straight flush and the subsequent AAAA on the $5 bonus machine (about $8K total) had not yet reached my win goal.

When I took my $4K royals on recent visit and took them to play $5 Bonus Rob chastised me again. But $4K is not my win goal.

When I play VP my win goal is $20K or more. Winning $4k or $8k only gives me more bullets to keep me firing.

[arcimede$]

Win goals work fine when you reach them. I have high win goals. Rob chastised me for not walking when I hit the $25 straight flush. Well, the payoff on the straight flush and the subsequent AAAA on the $5 bonus machine (about $8K total) had not yet reached my win goal.

When I took my $4K royals on recent visit and took them to play $5 Bonus Rob chastised me again. But $4K is not my win goal.

When I play VP my win goal is $20K or more. Winning $4k or $8k only gives me more bullets to keep me firing.

Which serves as a good example to what I've been telling you. If you set low win goals you will hit them more often and leave a winner more often. However, with higher win goals you'll win less but occasionally hit a big win. Overall the average return over many sessions converges on your ER. The amount you end up winning or losing is that ER times the total amount you have played.

This is really simple math. Most of it is grade school level. The only complicated math is determining the probabilities which is useful in computing bankroll requirements but has very little value otherwise.

[Alan Mendelson]

Which serves as a good example to what I've been telling you. If you set low win goals you will hit them more often and leave a winner more often. However, with higher win goals you'll win less but occasionally hit a big win.

You are absolutely correct, but I don't recall you ever saying anything in support of win goals. LOL

By the way, I use different win goals in live poker. I know that doubling or tripling your money represents a very big win in live poker. That means buying into a $100 and leaving with $300 is a nice day's work. The player who left this morning with $600 had to buy in twice ($200) and had to make up for previous losses. So $600 represented a nice move back to the positive side of the ledger for him. He didn't want to risk losing it back-- because he has money to play again and probably tonight.

I told you this before but you pooh pooed it. I said if I set a win goal of $500 playing $5 Aces and Faces I could reach it almost every time I played. I've hit $500 profits many times in many sessions, but I am not travelling to a casino just to win $500 at VP and quit.

If I won $500 playing poker at the casino that's fifteen minutes from my house, I might go out and buy a new computer... which is what I did a week ago. LOL

[arcimede$]

You are absolutely correct, but I don't recall you ever saying anything in support of win goals. LOL

No, I've said quite often that win goals are a good thing if you must play negative games. The reason is because you end up playing less which means you end up losing less. That's all they do. They don't improve your ER.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, I've said quite often that win goals are a good thing if you must play negative games. The reason is because you end up playing less which means you end up losing less. That's all they do. They don't improve your ER.

I think we have now come full circle.

[Rob.Singer]

You keep avoiding the question. We know you've had $20K RFs in VP and you claim to be a net loser. I believe you've also claimed to be a net loser at craps. It appears those win goals aren't working.

Another example of arci deflecting the issue--and he even thinks no one notices! Alan hasn't used win goals--he simply suggests how much sense it makes to use them, regardless of what game one plays. I use them arci. I win with them. What's the matter, you only want to believe someone who says they lose, AFTER you created a win-goal user out of them?

See how easy it is to watch arci get caught in his own traps? DELETED

[Rob.Singer]

I think we have now come full circle.

Win goals alone do not improve ER. Congratulations on that simple-math brilliance. That's why special plays, a step up in game volatility, and denominational increase are all used together in SPS. That's where complex combinational math comes into play, and why/how it increases not long-term ER, but TODAY'S ER. IE, SHORT TERM play ER. But arci will need to come out of the punch card era to have any chance of understanding it.

[OceanCityMD]

Some say all things even out in a random video poker game like flipping a coin. If an AP player made some wrong holds, that also should equal out over the long run as well. There needs to be a variance that is consistent to adjust for that 'equalization' .

[arcimede$]

Win goals alone do not improve ER. Congratulations on that simple-math brilliance. That's why special plays, a step up in game volatility, and denominational increase are all used together in SPS. That's where complex combinational math comes into play, and why/how it increases not long-term ER, but TODAY'S ER. IE, SHORT TERM play ER. But arci will need to come out of the punch card era to have any chance of understanding it.

Total nonsense. Since VP results are the sum of independent hand results, there are no possible "complex combinational math" that comes into play. BTW, the word is combinatorial. You don't even know how to talk a good game.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci, if you really worked in a technology company before quitting to play video poker out of habit, you'd have known that the proper "combinatorial" term was replaced by the much more widely understood " combinational" term many years ago. I think even Frank uses it, and we discussed it several times in our meets. Are you going to say his "game" is off too?

Either way, you showed you don't understand the concept, which also means you had to Google combinational math to begin with. Thus, your illogical inclusion of incorporating "the sum of independent hands" into a discussion that has nothing to do with that.

[arcimede$]

Arci, if you really worked in a technology company before quitting to play video poker out of habit, you'd have known that the proper "combinatorial" term was replaced by the much more widely understood " combinational" term many years ago. I think even Frank uses it, and we discussed it several times in our meets. Are you going to say his "game" is off too?

Silly nonsense, even the spell checker marks it as a non-word. BTW, they don't change decades old terminology to use another word to mean the same thing. That is beyond silly and anyone claiming that is so obviously lying it isn't even funny.

Either way, you showed you don't understand the concept, which also means you had to Google combinational math to begin with. Thus, your illogical inclusion of incorporating "the sum of independent hands" into a discussion that has nothing to do with that.

You can't even spell it right. What a clown. I can't even give you credit for a good attempt to hide your ignorance. All you did was make it even more obvious. Better be careful, jatki may start to realize what a fool he's been for believing your BS.

[Rob.Singer]

I saw the Obama people respond to a Romney fact-supported claim tonight, with embarrassment, denial, and namecalling. In other words, what do you think the Obama camp looked like once everyone read it? Yup, just like you do here. Spell-checkers, googling, and even the frustration about JATKI! all pop up in the same face-saving ramble attempt. That's over 100% EV....ENTERTAINMENT VALUE!!

[slingshot]

Math predicts randomness within well understood bounds. These bounds are based on probabilities.

The key thing to understand about randomness is that even though it is not exact, there is no way to control it. You can't make an RNG give you 4 aces more than another person. You can get up and leave, twirl around or take a leak all you want but you can't force random events to lean towards what you want. That's why it's called random. And, that's why Alan's "human element" is total nonsense. He is claiming he can make a RNG give him better cards than the average player. That is just plain stupid.

So, all we can do then is play within a time frame and take whatever luck comes our way with a structured progression to benefit from this luck whenever it comes whether it be $100 or $1000.

[Rob.Singer]

Sling, all he'll do is call you names. He doesn't believe there's anything called luck--he calls it "distribution" or something similarly silly to try to sound like an expert. He doesn't believe in a structured progression either. In his world, if you sit for 6 hours on a $1 10/7 DB machine and finally hit those four Aces at the end of boring hour no. 6 that makes you down "only" $100 for the trip, you've actually won because every hand was played with a "theoretical advantage" and your pockets become filled with phantom bucks, and the more hands you played the fatter your pockets become.

However, while the "structured progression" player finally hits those four Aces playing that stupid negative EV 7/5 SDBP game at the $10 level and walks out with thousands in REAL profit bucks, the AP claim is that the more hands you played, the more you lost. In other words, that cash isn't yours, because the math just jumped up and snatched it back simply because you were playing a negative EV game!

See why these guys can't stand simple common sense, and why arci every day asks God Why....WHY this guy named Singer was ever born?!

[arcimede$]

So, all we can do then is play within a time frame and take whatever luck comes our way with a structured progression to benefit from this luck whenever it comes whether it be $100 or $1000.

Or -$100 and -$1000.

[arcimede$]

Sling, all he'll do is call you names. He doesn't believe there's anything called luck--he calls it "distribution" or something similarly silly to try to sound like an expert. He doesn't believe in a structured progression either. In his world, if you sit for 6 hours on a $1 10/7 DB machine and finally hit those four Aces at the end of boring hour no. 6 that makes you down "only" $100 for the trip, you've actually won because every hand was played with a "theoretical advantage" and your pockets become filled with phantom bucks, and the more hands you played the fatter your pockets become.

However, while the "structured progression" player finally hits those four Aces playing that stupid negative EV 7/5 SDBP game at the $10 level and walks out with thousands in REAL profit bucks, the AP claim is that the more hands you played, the more you lost. In other words, that cash isn't yours, because the math just jumped up and snatched it back simply because you were playing a negative EV game!

See why these guys can't stand simple common sense, and why arci every day asks God Why....WHY this guy named Singer was ever born?!

You forgot one little detail. If the APer doesn't hit the aces he'd down like $1000 while the progression dude is down over $30,000, probably closer to $50,000.

[slingshot]

You forgot one little detail. If the APer doesn't hit the aces he'd down like $1000 while the progression dude is down over $30,000, probably closer to $50,000.

At 5/10/25/50 cent progressions? I forgot to mention I cannot play as high as you guys.

[arcimede$]

At 5/10/25/50 cent progressions? I forgot to mention I cannot play as high as you guys.

Just divide by 20.

[Rob.Singer]

You forgot one little detail. If the APer doesn't hit the aces he'd down like $1000 while the progression dude is down over $30,000, probably closer to $50,000.

And you ignored one. Almost every session played (85% to be close to exact) includes one or two of those type of hits, and in over 300 of these sessions there was never a loss greater than 35k...and once only.

Go back to the theory board and try again. Reality: It's not what you think.

[Vegas Vic]

I was playing Mr Singer's RTT method and had progressed to .50 BP machine and was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k

It doesn't matter what kind of system you were playing when you were dealt the foyal and then hit the royal. The "system" did not give you the foyal and the "system" did not fill the hand for a royal. Suggesting that the "system" was responsible for your 2K is as silly as saying you got it because you were drinking a Coke and not a Pepsi when you hit.

I did not say that I hit the RF because of the "system" I was responding to Allan's comment about holding the flush in the hand instead of the Rf in the bush.It appears that anytime a Singer System is even mentioned, even if it has nothing to do with the results, his detractors swarm in like vultures to tear it apart.

If your intention was to merely respond to Alan's comment, you could have simply said "I was dealt 8c,Ac,Qc,Jc,10c I held the 4RF and hit the Kc for 2k." You must have felt it was important and vital to include you were playing Singer's system and by doing so, you opened yourself up to scrutiny involving that system. Besides, my analogy was completely accurate when it comes to correlating end results to any "system". Sorry that I hurt your feelings. Singer disciples appear to be overly sensitive for some reason.