Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[kewlJ]

You guys are so confused about the long term vs. the short term....among other things.

First, the long term only means an individual's playing life, and of course it can be very different for many. That's why one person trying to apply it to someone else is ludicrous. The long term automatically applies to every casino and every game.

What's even more hilarious is when an AP tries to rationalize how playing a 99.99% game will make someone a loser in their version of the long-run....but if that person played a 100.01% game then they absolutely will be a winner in that same long run.

AP's come apart at the seams over what I've accomplished because they are not ones to use their heads beyond what the simple math says. They just cannot get that we as human beings are entirely capable--by using that incredible computer attached to our necks and not the ones from Apple or Dell etc.--of devising methods that create scenarios where certain expected or unexpected results can be prolonged or greatly reduced/eliminated from the standard.

I'm believing there has never been another vp player capable of doing what I have done, which is why there are and have been so many critical, angry, and jealous AP's out there. Naturally they're going to be frustrated when they hear of another's unprecedented success that goes beyond the limits of their intelligence levels.

But there are some very simple points that even their children could comprehend, that is, if any of them could even AFFORD children. Has any of you ever taken $52k to a VP game with the intent of winning less than 5% of your bankroll? Have any of you ever not been confused by the concept of going DOWN in denomination instead of the addict-loving UP after a cashout/pre-set win goal/soft profit is attained? Have any of you ever considered trading a sure or expected push or small winner for the carefully analyzed possibility of hitting a bigger winner, when that winner would allow you to hit a pre-set win goal, today and not over some silly amount of time?

Of course you people don't do any of this stuff because you prefer to think you're smarter than casinos with your "grind-it-out" waste of time nonsense. And then, when faced with the likes of me, all you can do is say "positive means win/negative means lose" while dissing (and never able to explain) the fact that if a method has a very high possibility of winning this session then it has the same possibility of winning every session. And you use the LOLN's as your excuse....even though none of you have ever studied it or know it's true, very complex computational definitions.

Wise up people. When any person is involved instead of a robot, there are no limits to what we can do over any particular amount of time.

This entire post is just fantasy. It is untrue. It is mathematically untrue. Mathematically impossible. Ron Singer or whatever your name is, you are simply full of shit. You are living in a fantasy or alternative reality. Pay particular attention to the line I highlighted. There is nothing special about you. You have no magical powers that can turn a -EV game to a winning or +EV game.

Ok so I play blackjack for a living. Most blackjack games are initially a -EV game. Somewhere about .5% house edge depending on exact rules. Very common 6 deck game, dealer hits soft 17 is .64 house advantage. That is initially -EV. So if I were to bet $100 a hand on every hand....I will lose in the long run. No question about it. I think everyone understands this. I will have some winning sessions, some really nice winning sessions, but in the end....in the long run I will lose whatever total action x.64%. THAT is the mathematical formula total action x house advantage (.64% in this case).

Now card counting. I think most people understand card counting, but I will give a quick synopsis. With blackjack the advantage or disadvantage (house edge) is not fixed or constant. It varies by round depending on what cards have been played and what cards remain to be played. So some rounds, the house edge may be larger than .64%, some round the house edge may be smaller than .64% and sometimes, a small percentage of the time, the player actually has an advantage. But all these rounds played at these different advantages, add up to that total .64% house edge (longterm).

So card counting is tracking the cards played, so you know when the remaining cards result in that player advantage. You then bet more in these circumstances, which allows you to change the total advantage ever so lightly to favor the player.....LONG-TERM. This is all mathematical fact. There IS a mathematical basis for how you change the game from -EV to +EV.

Now compare this to video poker. There are no changing cards, so different rounds are not played at different house advantages. The house advantage is what it is. It is fixed or constant. There are a few games with paybacks over 100%, but most are below. And that means EVERY round is below. So if a game starts out 99.5 payback or about .5 house advantage (similar to blackjack) there is nothing to change that. Every round is played at a house advantage of .5%. You will have some winning sessions, same as blackjack, and some losing sessions but the longterm formula is whatever amount of money you have bet (total action) x 99.5% (.5% house advantage).

So if you play 25 cents for several hours at -.5%, and then when losses hit a certain amount, bump up to 50 cents, you are not changing the odds you are just doubling what you will lose (longterm). And if you bump up again to $1, you are again, just multiplying your losses. At no point have you done anything to change the formula, total action x 99.5%

Any kind of claim that progressive betting (moving up in stakes) changes a -EV game into a winning game (+EV) is just pure fantasy. It is mathematical hogwash.

Let's go back to blackjack for a minute. Forget card counting. This is like saying ok I will bet $100 a hand at my -.64% standard house edge, 6 deck game. So after a while, as my losses mount, I double up to $200 a hand. That changes nothing except accelerates the losses. Increasing wagers again to $300 a hand again changes nothing. Formula is still total action x house edge (in this case .64%) All you are doing is increasing the total action and likewise the total losses (longterm).

This Rob Singer person has given us NOTHING to explain how he changes a -EV game into a winning or +EV game, other than stupid remarks about how he is "special" and comments like "he does things that no one else can do or even understand". He might as well be claiming he can flap his arms and fly. And when asked how he can do that, he says "I am special".

Maybe he IS special. Maybe he is Elizabeth Montgomery and can twitch his nose and make the impossible happen. But in the absence of that, he continues to either lie to us, or lie to himself or some combination of the two.