$25k challenge

[Alan Mendelson]

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.

I've often wondered if there really is a difference between playing a 99% return game and a 100% return game when you're playing only hundreds or thousands of hands?

Just one royal flush makes a big difference, doesn't it? How many extra 4OAKs do you need to make a difference?

And anyone who says they play a 100% game who doesn't get a royal only had a theoretical 98% game.

[coach belly]

I've often wondered if there really is a difference between playing a 99% return game and a 100% return game when you're playing only hundreds or thousands of hands?

I believe Mission has explained that there is not really a critical difference,
the difference manifests itself over "millions and millions" of hands.

[Dankyone]

But Alan, you have played millions of hands. That’s getting toward the long term.

Even though you say are playing a 99.18% game, the way you play it it’s probably a 97% game. It starts to matter.

[Alan Mendelson]

But Alan, you have played millions of hands. That’s getting toward the long term.

Even though you say are playing a 99.18% game, the way you play it it’s probably a 97% game. It starts to matter.

I don't know that I played millions of hands. Things do happen in the short term. I hit my first $100k royal starting with only $2,000. I hit my second and third $100k royals with $2500 of free play. I've only played $25/coin video poker six times in my life. I doubt I played even one royal flush cycle on the $25 machine. And by the way, all three $100k royals were on the same machine at Caesars.

[Dankyone]

You have had wonderful luck at the $25 denomination. I congratulate you.

[mickeycrimm]

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"

Take note that coach petunia started the troll in this thread. He couldn't let sleeping dogs lie. And it will not go unanswered.

[mickeycrimm]

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"

Coach Petunia, you little bitch. I guess Rob has been packing you up the ass again. You love sucker bets so its the only explanation why you aren't all over this bet. You don't want to piss off your lover.

[mickeycrimm]

I've often wondered if there really is a difference between playing a 99% return game and a 100% return game when you're playing only hundreds or thousands of hands? Just one royal flush makes a big difference, doesn't it? How many extra 4OAKs do you need to make a difference? And anyone who says they play a 100% game who doesn't get a royal only had a theoretical 98% game.

Alan, many AP's, including myself, won't get involved unless its at least a 2% edge. And I didn't play much with just a 2% edge. For several years I played a game called Unlinked Flush Attack on the quarter level. I knew all the tricks to gettting a bigger edge than what the game called for. I played at about a 5% edge. In the pic below you can see the stats for the game.

Notice that the royal odds are 45K and it represents 1.78% of the payback. The straight flush odds are 7.6K and it represents .65% of the payback. That's about 2.5% total. The next longest cycle is the 4 aces at 4.6K. So the game is at 102.5% just up through the 4 aces. In other words, I made money even in royal droughts.

I played at least 100,000 hands most months. The machines finally got to old and decrepit. It was my bread and butter play for about 7 years.

So when you talk about there not being much difference between 99% and 100% please leave me out of the conversation.

[tableplay]

It's very generous of Rob to refrain from becoming a billionaire. Kind of like pulling your punches when you have your opponent outmatched in a boxing match I guess.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's very generous of Rob to refrain from becoming a billionaire. Kind of like pulling your punches when you have your opponent outmatched in a boxing match I guess.

Perhaps Rob is just realistic in that he knows luck (variance) can't always be on his side? Perhaps it's "quit while you're ahead" in the medium term?

APs can't quit, can they? They believe that machines with a positive paytable and/or bonuses and cashback entitle them to win.

Now who's more realistic? The player who knows luck and variance can't be on his side forever, or the players who think the combination of paytable and promos makes them destined to be winners?

I think Rob should be applauded for quitting when ahead.

But with that said, Rob still plays and I'm sure he still plays with the discipline he had before but doesn't play high limits as before. After all he is retired and retirees have to be mindful of their budgets.

I'll probably never play $25 VP again and I haven't played $5 VP in about a year. Fortunately I found good VP paytables at the 25-cent level.

[slingshot]

Has nothing to do with the math or teeny variances in payback. All about setting the proper win goal and quitting when reached. Dung beetle here replying.

[mickeycrimm]

Has nothing to do with the math or teeny variances in payback. All about setting the proper win goal and quitting when reached. Dung beetle here replying.

Sling, I have a question for you. Is ignorance bliss?

[tableplay]

It's very generous of Rob to refrain from becoming a billionaire. Kind of like pulling your punches when you have your opponent outmatched in a boxing match I guess.

Perhaps Rob is just realistic in that he knows luck (variance) can't always be on his side? Perhaps it's "quit while you're ahead" in the medium term?

APs can't quit, can they? They believe that machines with a positive paytable and/or bonuses and cashback entitle them to win.

Now who's more realistic? The player who knows luck and variance can't be on his side forever, or the players who think the combination of paytable and promos makes them destined to be winners?

I think Rob should be applauded for quitting when ahead.

But with that said, Rob still plays and I'm sure he still plays with the discipline he had before but doesn't play high limits as before. After all he is retired and retirees have to be mindful of their budgets.

I'll probably never play $25 VP again and I haven't played $5 VP in about a year. Fortunately I found good VP paytables at the 25-cent level.

Sorry Alan, but you are making too many straw man arguments again. No one said anything about APs not being able to quit or that they feel winning is their destiny.

[monet]

Has nothing to do with the math or teeny variances in payback. All about setting the proper win goal and quitting when reached. Dung beetle here replying.

You thought the Dung Beetle analogy was in reference to you?
You Dumb Bastard!
That analogy was saying that it is much Easier to Steal than it is to Work for it.

[Mission146]

I've often wondered if there really is a difference between playing a 99% return game and a 100% return game when you're playing only hundreds or thousands of hands?

Just one royal flush makes a big difference, doesn't it? How many extra 4OAKs do you need to make a difference?

And anyone who says they play a 100% game who doesn't get a royal only had a theoretical 98% game.

1.) Quite a difference. I refuse to believe that you are this stupid, again. As you increase the sample size of players and number of times played on a negative expectation game, then a greater number of those players will lose. What happens if you get rid of the zeroes on Roulette? Let's say one player bets red and the other bets black, one will often be ahead or behind no matter how many times they play, sometimes tied, but the casino hasn't made anything off of either of them. If you do 50,000 such tables with two players per table, everything adds up to what the players started with. Again, several are down and several are up, but the sum is 100% of what they had to start.

2.) One Royal Flush can make a big difference, or a small one, depends on how many lifetime hands you have played. If you hit one, "Extra," royal which is 800x the bet and you have played 2,000,000 lifetime hands, then that Royal has effectively added 0.04% to your lifetime results. That can be the difference between being ahead or behind even on that sample on a high enough returning game. I believe there is a paytable on a game that returns 99.96%, but I couldn't name it at the moment and I could be wrong.

3.) Your last sentence is wrong because actual and theoretical are two different things. When you say, "Doesn't get a Royal," you're referring to actual. I'm surprised to see a journalist who doesn't believe that words should have meanings.

[Dankyone]

Re 3.) Alan doesn’t understand what theoretical means.

[mickeycrimm]

I've often wondered if there really is a difference between playing a 99% return game and a 100% return game when you're playing only hundreds or thousands of hands?

Just one royal flush makes a big difference, doesn't it? How many extra 4OAKs do you need to make a difference?

And anyone who says they play a 100% game who doesn't get a royal only had a theoretical 98% game.

1.) Quite a difference. I refuse to believe that you are this stupid, again. As you increase the sample size of players and number of times played on a negative expectation game, then a greater number of those players will lose. What happens if you get rid of the zeroes on Roulette? Let's say one player bets red and the other bets black, one will often be ahead or behind no matter how many times they play, sometimes tied, but the casino hasn't made anything off of either of them. If you do 50,000 such tables with two players per table, everything adds up to what the players started with. Again, several are down and several are up, but the sum is 100% of what they had to start.

2.) One Royal Flush can make a big difference, or a small one, depends on how many lifetime hands you have played. If you hit one, "Extra," royal which is 800x the bet and you have played 2,000,000 lifetime hands, then that Royal has effectively added 0.04% to your lifetime results. That can be the difference between being ahead or behind even on that sample on a high enough returning game. I believe there is a paytable on a game that returns 99.96%, but I couldn't name it at the moment and I could be wrong.

3.) Your last sentence is wrong because actual and theoretical are two different things. When you say, "Doesn't get a Royal," you're referring to actual. I'm surprised to see a journalist who doesn't believe that words should have meanings.

Almost Positive Deuces Wild, a rare payscale, is a 99.96% game.

[tableplay]

Mickey already identified the game - redundant post.

[Mission146]

Almost Positive Deuces Wild, a rare payscale, is a 99.96% game.

That's the one, thanks!

[Mission146]

Re 3.) Alan doesn’t understand what theoretical means.

Quite possible.