$25k challenge

[Rob.Singer]

As far as AP's....some of them are lifetime winners, but it isn't because of some grind-it-out "with an edge" play. It's because they get lucky, and it's no more or no less than that.

No, that's complete bullshit.

Let's say you have a scenario in which you have a casino that will give you a total of $1,500 free play over a few months and all you have to do is play $5,000 coin-in on the first day of having a Player's Club card. Playing a Video Poker game on a low enough denomination, you essentially can't lose if you have even a minimal idea of how to play it correctly. The only potential problem is if the card ends up screwed for some reason, but aside from that, there's just virtually no way to lose money overall on an individual card.

There are other examples I could come up with. On other plays, it's just because the AP hits what one would consider the, "Long Run," (which I consider the point that at least 999,999/1,000,000 players would win) much more quickly due to the size of the advantage. It's the same thing with recreational players, the bigger the house edge against them (absent huge variance-related factors or huge top prizes) the faster you reach the point that no player over a given sample could conceivably win.

Being ahead on an individual type of play (or overall) may come down to Variance if the AP is not playing with a big enough edge or is overplaying bankroll (too much variance). However, there are many examples of plays in which an AP could not lose given even a fairly small sample of attempts.

Hell, there are literally individual plays such that an AP can't possibly lose. Those are rare, of course, and I don't think an AP would make much doing those exclusively. I'm talking about slot vulturing conditions such that it is impossible to lose the spin(s) on this last part.

Players who claim to win because of slot card/club fluff, drawings, tournaments, and comps are not true gambling winners.

[MisterV]

I can tell you that there are some corporate landlords that are totally unreasonable. I rented from one in LA that demanded three months rent to break a lease early, yet they only required a one month deposit. What would you have done if you had to break your lease? Would you have paid three months rent or just forfeited your deposit?

What kind of question is that?

Apples and oranges.

Their demanding a three month payment to break a lease does not give you the option of walking away simply by forfeiting your deposit.

I've evicted lots of tenants, alan, and am familiar with how the game is played.

A security deposit is independent of and has nothing tying it to one's obligations and responibilities when it comes to breaking a lease.

Were it me I'd offer to split the difference, pay one and a half months; yeah, I'd negotiate.

Try it, it often works.

[mickeycrimm]

Nothing but a bunch of frustrated cowards. Must I publish this challenge in a couple of LV newspapers too?

Yes, and while you are at it advertise for a casino to let Bob Dancer deposit $1,000,000 in the cage and play $25 9/6 Jacks with 1% cashback until he has either won or lost $1,000,000. You can kill two birds with one stone. If Dancer loses the challenge, which you say surely he will, you can really rub the AP world's nose in it. Think of all the fun you will have calling AP's idiots, retards, morons, bullshit artists, and bums. You have to do it for the sake of the anti-AP crowd too.

[Mission146]

Your explanation seems reasonable.

Singer has always claimed that the long term doesn't necessarily apply to the player,
the player can't play enough to reach or even approach the long term.

This is where one has to be careful to get into very precise language in order to avoid giving the wrong impression.

I would say that the long-term doesn't necessarily apply to a player, but it applies to, the player.

Basically, in any game in which there is a house edge, then you have players who are going to win and players who are going to lose. Craps is a great example because it has a nearly binary bet in terms of selection and result and that is Pass v. Don't Pass. More often than not, the Pass Line bet is going to win whereas the Don't Pass loses, or the opposite will happen. However, 1/36 Come Out rolls will be a 12 which causes the Pass Line bet to lose whereas the Don't Pass bet pushes. That's counterbalanced by a fundamentally lower probability for the Don't Pass bet of winning outright.

Anyway, if you and I each place a bet of $5 on the respective lines, then one of us will win $5 and one of us will lose $5 97.222222% of the time. Hell, we could just cut out the middleman and pass the red chips back and forth to one another!

So, half the players win and half the players lose, usually.

Anyway, the 12 has to come up sometime, which costs the Pass Line money and doesn't do anything to the Don't Pass either way. The Don't Pass still loses more than it wins, though.

If you imagine 50,000 Craps Tables each with 2 players one betting the Pass and the other the Don't Pass, then you will see a wide range of results. After five Come Out rolls on every single table, you have 43,430.79 tables (mean average, rounded) upon which either one player or another is ahead and the casino does not have any money from either player.

After fifty-one Come Out rolls, we are already down to 11885.371 (mean average, rounded) tables where the casino does not have any money from either player.

After 201 Come Out Rolls, there are still 173.72 tables (mean average, rounded) where the casino does not have money from either player.

After 501 Come Out Rolls, we are at the point where only 0.0371114 tables where the casino has yet to make anything. One player MUST be up while one is down (No CO 12's, Odd number of CO Rolls), but the casino has yet to make anything, the money of the two players still adds to what it starts with.

On and on it goes, and some variation of the same dynamic for every other game on the casino floor in which there is a House Edge, as well.

Anyway, it may not effect, a player, someone has won the Powerball, for example. However, it does effect the player which is to say, as the number of trials goes up, the less and less likely it is for the player to be ahead.

Singer talks about AP's and, "Luck." There is no luck. Only Variance, and eventually, the beautiful lack thereof.

But, if there were luck, the players bucking a negative expectation need to be lucky to be ahead. AP's need to be unlucky to be behind.

[Mission146]

Players who claim to win because of slot card/club fluff, drawings, tournaments, and comps are not true gambling winners.

1.) Blow me. I don't care about you or your claims, so why do you care about what I do? Even if I did, then I may not care about being a, "Gambling winner," whatever the fuck that means. Maybe I just care about winning.

2.) That also doesn't change the fact that there are literal, "Can't lose," plays out there that do not rely on anything you are saying.

[coach belly]

Coach, you are always looking for a bet that you want to be on the wrong side of. Why don't you challenge Rob?

Rob outlined who he is looking for to challenge him below...I'm not welcome.

He's looking for weirdos...like you and your ex.

I always suspected that "passed away" was a euphemism for "moved back to Montana"

I'm ready to take on any of you phony WoV armchair gamblers who survive on theory. Any and all WoV weirdos, freaks, queers, transgenders, foreigners, minorities, and crooked/corrupt/incompetent/lying Hillary supporters are welcome.

[mickeycrimm]

The long term is theoretical, and applies to the casino.

It applies to everyone, not just casinos. But you obviously don't know how to take the long term out of it. On thin edge plays like video poker, with a fraction of a percent of edge, it can take a long long time for that edge to manifest itself. But if you lay me 2 to 1 flipping coins at a rate of 200 flips per hour I'll probably never have a losing hour. If Bill Gates layed me 2 to 1 for for any sizeable bet and played 200 flips an hour I would be a billionaire in a month. So whether one has to reach the long term or not is dependant on the size of the edge.

If you take the 9/6 Jacks payscale and change it to 12/7, in other words the full house pays 12 for 1 and the flush pays 7 for 1, I'll never have a losing week and rarely have a losing day..

[coach belly]

I would say that the long-term doesn't necessarily apply to a player, but it applies to, the player.

Didn't you write above that it's unlikely for a player to play enough hands
such that it's mathematically impossible to lose?

[Dankyone]

So funny. Would a normal, straight, white, American male who is honest, competent, and denounces Hillary be unwelcome?

Silly question. A competent bettor would want the best of it.

[coach belly]

The long term is theoretical, and applies to the casino.

It applies to everyone, not just casinos. But you obviously don't know how to take the long term out of it.

The discussion was about 8/5 BP...not coin flips or nickle keno.

I think Mission explained that it's unlikely that a player can play enough hands
to reach the long term, only the the casino can play that many hands,
since they play all the hands against all the players all the time.

[Mission146]

Didn't you write above that it's unlikely for a player to play enough hands
such that it's mathematically impossible to lose?

Yes, but as you increase the number of hands played among a given sample of players, more of those players will lose.

[coach belly]

Didn't you write above that it's unlikely for a player to play enough hands
such that it's mathematically impossible to lose?

Yes, but as you increase the number of hands played among a given sample of players, more of those players will lose.

My understanding is that this discussion is about a player, and his specific strategy.

Can theory be accurately applied to multiple players, who don't play that strategy?

[Mission146]

My understanding is that this discussion is about a player, and his specific strategy.

Can theory be accurately applied to multiple players, who don't play that strategy?

To the extent that we are discussing negative expectation (in general terms) v. positive expectation, yes.

[coach belly]

My understanding is that this discussion is about a player, and his specific strategy.

Can theory be accurately applied to multiple players, who don't play that strategy?

To the extent that we are discussing negative expectation (in general terms) v. positive expectation, yes.

My understanding is that the discussion is about probability of winning,
which you explained earlier is not the same as expectation...correct?

[Mission146]

My understanding is that the discussion is about probability of winning,
which you explained earlier is not the same as expectation...correct?

Multiple discussions often take place at one time on gambling message boards, or discussions that touch upon multiple aspects of gambling.

Anyway, as Singer plays more and more sessions of negative expectation games, his probability of winning continues to drop. Eventually it drops below 50%. Then 25%. Then 10%. Then 1%. Anyway, he's not at zero yet or anything that is really effectively zero and it would be very hard to get there.

The point is this:

Positive Expectation: Eventually a bunch of players are 100% profitable and one player has a 100% probability of being profitable.

Negative Expectation: Eventually a bunch of players are 0% profitable and one player has a 0% probability of being profitable.

I guess AP is a little different because, on individual machine plays (few and far between) it is literally impossible not to profit.

Anyway, referring just to Singer, based on my understanding, it is quite possible he is ahead. That does not make his system one that has a positive expectation.

[Alan Mendelson]

I can tell you that there are some corporate landlords that are totally unreasonable. I rented from one in LA that demanded three months rent to break a lease early, yet they only required a one month deposit. What would you have done if you had to break your lease? Would you have paid three months rent or just forfeited your deposit?

What kind of question is that?

Apples and oranges.

Their demanding a three month payment to break a lease does not give you the option of walking away simply by forfeiting your deposit.

I've evicted lots of tenants, alan, and am familiar with how the game is played.

A security deposit is independent of and has nothing tying it to one's obligations and responibilities when it comes to breaking a lease.

Were it me I'd offer to split the difference, pay one and a half months; yeah, I'd negotiate.

Try it, it often works.

My point is the big corps don't negotiate. When you sign a lease you know you're screwed.

[mickeycrimm]

The long term is theoretical, and applies to the casino.

It applies to everyone, not just casinos. But you obviously don't know how to take the long term out of it.

The discussion was about 8/5 BP...not coin flips or nickle keno.

I think Mission explained that it's unlikely that a player can play enough hands
to reach the long term, only the the casino can play that many hands,
since they play all the hands against all the players all the time.

The long term has been part of the discussion, idiot. Since you don't have an argument you want to slander someone. Fuck off, bitch.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mission wrote:

"referring just to Singer, based on my understanding, it is quite possible he is ahead. That does not make his system one that has a positive expectation."

Thank you. I hope kewlj read that because his entire argument is based on Rob playing a -EV game, and I'm sure many of Rob's critics share kewlj's belief.

I also think the key to Rob being able to report a winning session is his plan to call it quits reaching a win goal. He sets a modest win goal with a $57k bankroll. Why shouldn't he win each time?

[coach belly]

He sets a modest win goal with a $57k bankroll. Why shouldn't he win each time?

It seems that there is no reason why he shouldn't win each time.

Although some have insisted that it's impossible for him to have won overall
using his strategies, it's been explained that it's quite possible he is ahead.

[Rob.Singer]

If we can get the sore losers to stop with the dodge and deflect nonsense about how dire they wish our personal finances were, I'll ask the tough question again.

Seems everyone agrees I wouldn't have much chance of losing a session TODAY. Yet the ap's claim that I'll lose in some type of "long-term". Exactly how is that done....exactly why do my chances of winning any individual session go way down? It makes no sense. Remember, this isn't coin flips or blackjack.

# of hands played is not an indicator of some type of long term with my strategy. In about 350 individual sessions I estimate I've played 350 X 4 hours X 400 hph (don't get nervous--this is a complex strategy that requires slower, more attentive play) or about 560,000 hands. Yet even if I played 100,000 sessions there is no difference. Each session still has the same high probability of being successful.

In no case am I turning -ev into positive ev. That's just an uninformed argument point. But what I AM doing is proving the -EV games in a unique game like video poker, can indeed very consistently turn a profit. If I had started with a $6500 bankroll to make $2500 minimum then likely not. But with the $57,200 bankroll I use, it almost assures success every time out.

Now somebody please tell me how I've done the impossible. Tell me something coherent without the continual dumb flame "you can only win like that if you play +ev games!"

One more point: 560,000 hands with a profit of $984,000. That's $1.75/hand played. Where else you people gonna find something so profitable for so little work? Is that why you don't want it to be??