Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
I put through a certain amount of coin-in on slightly negative EV machines to generate mailer offers that made the whole play +EV. No figuring anything out. It was the disproportional mailer offers in Vegas that enabled the play to be +EV.
I think I will take this opportunity to expand on this. If you are starting out with a slightly -EV game, there has to be something that turns the game +EV for it to be a longterm winner and for you to show a long-term profit. In this case, I clearly explained just what it was that allowed me to turn my slightly -EV play to +EV play where I could show a longterm profit. It was the mailer. The mailer offers was greater than the expected loss from the slightly -EV play through.

There are other things that can do it, possibly just playing a point multiplier, is the initial disadvantage is small enough. BUT there has to be something!

I mean we have a guy on this site, claiming to play -EV games and has made millions doing so. But he can't and won't explain anything he does that changes the game to +EV.

He talks about progressive betting. Mathematical fact: Progressive betting, or any betting pattern can not change a -EV game to +EV.

He talks about stop limts, loss limits and win limits. Mathematical fact: Stop, loss, win limits can not change a -EV game to a +EV game. (all it does is slightly change the short-term distribution).

He talks about "special plays" and "soft profits". Clever catch words. No meaning. Complete voodoo. Can't change -EV to +EV.

Maybe he has some lucky rabbits foot round his neck, or some lucky charms in his pocket....but there is nothing mathematical that is going to account for winning millions of dollars playing a -EV game.

Ok, back to your original programming.

KewlJ, all valid points that I totally agree with. But I still think someone can win playing negative EV games. It's called being on the extreme side of the standard deviation curve. It's no different than someone winning the lottery. Lottery is a negative EV game, but in someone's lifetime, for some lucky person, they can win millions and die a millionary. If they lived to infinity, then yes, even that lucky person who won a multi-million dollar lottery would eventually go broke. So in the very long term - beyond one's lifespan - it's negative EV. But in someone's lifetime they can win a lot of money in a negative EV game and die a millionary. This is why people play the lottery. Their thinking is someone has got to win, so why not me?

The same is true with casinos and their negative EV games. The fact is there are some people winning over their lifespan playing like a ploppy. It's a very small percent of people, but it does occur.
The main difference is Singer didn't hit some fluke jackpot and his results are mathematically impossible to achieve at the stakes and total amounts he played. He tries to account for this by creating new terminology, i.e. "soft profits" (what a hoot) and "special plays" (special Ed maybe)
Eyeroll, because Moses likes it.