The Mendelson Voyage

[redietz]

I will attempt to translate: a casino is just an advantage player. That's what it is. Why would someone have statistical confidence in a casino's ability as an advantage player but no confidence in a human who sticks to advantage play?

[Alan Mendelson]

I will attempt to translate: a casino is just an advantage player. That's what it is. Why would someone have statistical confidence in a casino's ability as an advantage player but no confidence in a human who sticks to advantage play?

How can you have "statistical confidence" in a human who does not "play" 24/7/365 the way a casino does?
The casino plays hundreds of machines and dozens of tables but an individual plays one or two positions?

You are trying to extrapolate to an extreme. Sorry, can't buy it.

[arcimede$]

Alan, please explain why 24/7/365 makes a difference.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, please explain why 24/7/365 makes a difference.

It comes down to playing "over the long term." The casino plays millions of hands, and sees millions of dice rolls, and sees millions of spins of roulette wheels, and probably in very short order. How long does it take an individual player to come close to that "long term"?

Of course you're going to come up with some statistic that says statistical confidence is reached in "x-number" of hands which a mortal man can see.

Well, I'm sure that's exactly what Bob Dancer was thinking when he lost so much money to win a car at the Palms, and what he was thinking when he came up on the short end of that slot promotion at South Point.

Your theoreticals might work, but then, they might not. But the casino -- which is really there for the long term -- does get to see the long term.

That's why I say 24/7//365 makes a difference. Now, please fire away.

[Vegas Vic]

It comes down to playing "over the long term." The casino plays millions of hands, and sees millions of dice rolls, and sees millions of spins of roulette wheels, and probably in very short order. How long does it take an individual player to come close to that "long term"?

Of course you're going to come up with some statistic that says statistical confidence is reached in "x-number" of hands which a mortal man can see.

Well, I'm sure that's exactly what Bob Dancer was thinking when he lost so much money to win a car at the Palms, and what he was thinking when he came up on the short end of that slot promotion at South Point.

Your theoreticals might work, but then, they might not. But the casino -- which is really there for the long term -- does get to see the long term.

That's why I say 24/7//365 makes a difference. Now, please fire away.

The dichotomy of a casino's 24/7/365 is often a puzzler. All that money rolling in to their advantage and yet all the reported losses at the bottom line. Makes you wonder if the skims are still being delivered to the boys in Kansas City and Chicago.

[arcimede$]

It comes down to playing "over the long term." The casino plays millions of hands, and sees millions of dice rolls, and sees millions of spins of roulette wheels, and probably in very short order. How long does it take an individual player to come close to that "long term"?

It's all probabilities. Even though the odds favor the casino more than they do the individual player, the chances of losing still exist in both cases. This is your infamous "possibility".

For a smart player who finds a large edge the "long term" (ie. greater than 95% chances of winning) occurs every year.

Of course you're going to come up with some statistic that says statistical confidence is reached in "x-number" of hands which a mortal man can see.

Only because it is true.

Well, I'm sure that's exactly what Bob Dancer was thinking when he lost so much money to win a car at the Palms, and what he was thinking when he came up on the short end of that slot promotion at South Point.

No, those promotions were only a small part of his gambling ventures. Since they were extremely short the chances of losing were fairly high. However, since he applies the same principles to all his gambling he will win on many of the same types of promotions and after adding up all his plays he comes out ahead year after year.

I suspect Dancer writes about his losses to discourage people from turning pro. He really doesn't want the competition for the few good plays that show up in the denominations he likes to play.

Your theoreticals might work, but then, they might not. But the casino -- which is really there for the long term -- does get to see the long term.

That's why I say 24/7//365 makes a difference. Now, please fire away.

Same theoretical mathematics for the casino. It's like redietz was trying to explain to you. Does it really matter if your chances of failure are one in 50K or one in 50 million? Wouldn't smart money jump on the opportunity? Why do you believe it's all luck in the first case if an individual wins but not luck in the second case when the casino wins?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc wrote: "I suspect Dancer writes about his losses to discourage people from turning pro. He really doesn't want the competition for the few good plays that show up in the denominations he likes to play."

Wow, he openly and willingly does damage to his own brand just to keep other people from turning pro? I wonder how many books and DVDs that costs him?

[regnis]

Arci-you can't have it both ways with the long term and the math. Alan points out that the gambler has a finite number of throws, spins, hands, etc. The casino has an infinite number of throws, spins, or hands and can attain the undefined "long term" and therefor the advantage that the odds (math) are designed to attain.

[arcimede$]

No one, casino or player has an "infinite" number of hands. Hence, both have a finite chance of losing. That is the math. As I stated earlier the casino has a much smaller chance of losing. However, many advantage players have a very small chance of losing as well. This is not rocket science, it is simple mathematics.

[Alan Mendelson]

No one, casino or player has an "infinite" number of hands. Hence, both have a finite chance of losing. That is the math. As I stated earlier the casino has a much smaller chance of losing. However, many advantage players have a very small chance of losing as well. This is not rocket science, it is simple mathematics.

Are is correct that casinos have a chance of losing, and this also applies to Vegas Vic who wrote:

"The dichotomy of a casino's 24/7/365 is often a puzzler. All that money rolling in to their advantage and yet all the reported losses at the bottom line. Makes you wonder if the skims are still being delivered to the boys in Kansas City and Chicago."

When you look at most casino games, and various bets including table game bets, there is a small margin for the casinos. In Jacks of Better the casino's margin in the long term is only one-half of one percent. In the game of craps the casino's margin is about 1% on the most popular bets and even on slots the casino's margin might only be as much as 15% but more realistically is around 6-8% on average.

Casinos can also have bad runs and a player showing some skill over the casino's small edge can quickly be barred or trespassed and this of course happens to blackjack players who can overcome that game's edge of about 1%.

But Arc, you're just trying to dodge the issue by saying "No one, casino or player has an "infinite" number of hands." Reasonable people understand the number of hands played by a casino vs the number of hands played by an individual or even by a team.

Those of us who are reasonable quickly grasp that a casino can base its existence on the math while an individual player must hope that they meet the expectations of the math or hopefully can beat it. Individuals, unlike casinos, just don't play as many hands. Period.

[redietz]

This hearkens back to my point about driving to LV versus flying, Alan. The difference in risk of ruin for driving is like risk of ruin for an individual gambling with positive EV. The risk of ruin for flying is like risk of ruin for the casino. You seem to think the individual is quite vulnerable as compared to the casino, but the difference is tiny. You drive (a risky endeavor) to LV, however.

[Alan Mendelson]

the only point I get from your analogy, redietz, is that there is a risk of losing whether your are a casino or a player. So??

Casinos have gone bankrupt and so do players. So??

This is a very interesting philosophical and finance discussion but it doesnt help me beat the machine or leave the casino with more money than when I first entered it, does it? What we all want is a way to win. You could play according to the math and hope that if you are at a positive expectation game that the math will hold true for you. Or, you could play according to the math at a negative expectation game and hope that variance will make you a winner. Or, perhaps you can do something different ala Rob Singer and make special plays and quit when you reach a win goal?

[redietz]

If win goals and special plays actually worked, don't you think casinos would incorporate them?

[Alan Mendelson]

If win goals and special plays actually worked, don't you think casinos would incorporate them?

Why would a casino be concerned with a win goal? It always has the advantage so it will keep its doors open as long as possible. It's the gambler who doesn't have the advantage -- or the longevity -- that the casino has so the gambler is the one who employs win goals.

Special plays? Well, if you are talking about Singer's "special plays" how would a casino utilize them? Me? I like a couple of them in Triple Double Bonus but for the most part I play probably the same way as you, Dancer, Grochowski, Scott and Arcimedes. Even Singer says he only uses his special plays 5% of the time.

[jatki]

I think casinos have win goals with their business planning redetz. Ever heard of a profit goal for a quarter, for a year? How do casinos realize those goals? Yes, by winning it from gamblers.

Special plays like I've learned to use from Singer are another story. I'm with Alan, how in the heck can a casino use a special play?

I've been reading about an advantage players quote long term play for many years, and even a videopoker maniac like Bob Dancer has zilch chance of coming to even 1% of what any casino does with their amount of play. Arc is a strawman, and a strawman burns away easily.

[arcimede$]

I've been reading about an advantage players quote long term play for many years, and even a videopoker maniac like Bob Dancer has zilch chance of coming to even 1% of what any casino does with their amount of play. Arc is a strawman, and a strawman burns away easily.

You can't even create a legible sentence. Been hitting the sauce again?

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, Arc, jatki's sentence made perfect sense and was very understandable. Your comment about "hitting the sauce" wasn't necessary. And by the way, since the sentence appeared in text, it was very legible.

[arcimede$]

I noticed Singer has been making comments on vpfree but not here. Tell you something? He realizes he promised some supporting evidence for his system in October, he know he has no supporting evidence, he knows he will be asked about it if he returns. Therefore, we see him commenting as jatki in order to avoid the embarrassment. Now,

"I've been reading about an advantage players quote long term play for many years"

This is a typical messed up sentence from Singer when he's drinking.

You're probably right that "legible" was not a good choice of words although Webster defines it as "capable of being read or deciphered". The deciphered part gets partial credit, however.

[jatki]

Now Rob is a drinker and posts drunk? Has he met him and spent time with him as I have? I understand the bitterness arc has over him and why he needs him to be me, but where's that accusation come from? I too have seen him post on VPFREE a small handful of times in the past month or two. Short and sweet. I'm not the smartest guy in the world like the arc claims to be but hasn't proved it yet outside of criticizing my grammar, but isn't Singer going to be involved in a lengthy discussion here about his system when he gets back on after a long travel? So arc stop making non-supported insults and put the hate on hold, and your storytelling isn't much either.

I'm as interested in seeing the data as anyone especially because I'm on tap to make the trip with him. If he promised something as the accuser says, he told me it all depended on his travel schedule and that's a fact. Why don't we just wait and see what he says instead of making it all up on the go?

[arcimede$]

Now Rob is a drinker and posts drunk? Has he met him and spent time with him as I have? I understand the bitterness arc has over him and why he needs him to be me, but where's that accusation come from?

From his own admissions. I guess you've tried to forget your comments on freevpfree and for good reason.

I'm as interested in seeing the data as anyone especially because I'm on tap to make the trip with him. If he promised something as the accuser says, he told me it all depended on his travel schedule and that's a fact. Why don't we just wait and see what he says instead of making it all up on the go?

Chuckle, chuckle. No one has to see anything as we already know nothing exists. And for exactly the same reason a proof of 2+2=5 cannot exist. Give it up, Rob. You can no longer hide your lies.