Arc, here's where your diction (choice of words) causes trouble again. I am not disagreeing with you because I think I know what you really mean. But unfortunately you substituted the word "results" for "odds" in the phrase "a progression can change one's results...."
If someone is playing $1 video poker then suddenly switches to $100 video poker and hits any kind of a payoff, it is likely that they just changed their results for their trip. However, switching from $1 VP to $100 VP does not change the odds of their play. And by this, I mean it doesn't change the hold or payback on the machine. The hold or payback on the machine is what is stated on the screen and it is no more and no less regardless of what denomination you play at.
A progression will not change the hold or payback but a progression can change one's results if they get lucky and hit at the higher denomination. Of course they could also lose at the higher denomination and lose more of their money faster.
In order for Rob Singer's progression to work, he has to get lucky at the higher denominations. Sometimes it works and he hits a $100,000 royal at the $25 level. Sometimes it doesn't and he chases his losses to the tune of $50,000+.
The same is true for "special plays." If they hit you win. If they don't hit you lose. And the same can be said for conventional strategy. If you make the conventional holds and they hit then you have a winner. And if you make the conventional holds and they don't hit, then you have a loser.
About your other statements:
Everyone knows that rabbit's feet when dipped in gold and sprinkled with platinum talc work wonders, but few of us can afford them, so I am not going to discuss them here since I think it involves cruelty to animals. And I can't fathom the idea of having Peter's foot in my pocket.
Rubbing the screen worked very well for a player at Rincon the other night. He hit a royal for $20k after rubbing the screen. However, he rubbed the screen in a particularly special way that time. I know he rubbed the screen in a particularly special way that time because he rubs the screen before every play but he never hit a royal after those other rubs. His experience the other night proves that only a special rub can work.
Covering the screen also works when royals are dealt which is about 1 out of 629,740 hands. Never has a covered screen prevented an RNG from dealing a royal.
Alan, where can I get some of that egg nog?
I tried rubbing the lady next to me-----we are now married 3 years
If it's a joke to you please define the joke. You think there's a difference between playing a random vp machine at home vs. at a casino? I wrote an article about this in Gaming Today, and the result was a stunned AP community. They blab all the time about getting into that "theoretical long-term" then when I brought up how you could actually do it for free at home they were completely stupified and bombarded the GT phones with incomprehensible comments.
Rob, when the odds say you have a one in 40,000 chance of drawing a royal, you have that one in 40,000 chance on each and every hand you play. It does not mean that your chance of drawing the royal increases after 39,999 hands. If it did, I would not have gone through a 180-thousand hand drought without drawing a royal. And, if you had to go through 40-thou hands to hit a royal, I would not have hit five royals over the last six weeks or so.
Ha!
1 just caught on-long term and ap players!
I know that Alan, but by explaining it as you have you actually PROVED my point. Just think if a new player began by playing 500,000 hands that included a royal-starved time like yours. Then think about what it would be like if this new player, at some point late in your low royal flush streak, then chose to play his hands inside casinos rather than at home. How great would THAT be?
The point is, since you never know when you'll get hot or cold, IF you do well at home, just stay out of the casinos until it seems hopeless or it seems like it's starting to turn around. But if you do poorly at home, pick a day to start playing at the casinos. It's like an automatic advantage, simply because, as the AP's always say, EVENTUALLY THE MATH WILL CATCH UP. I wrote how I wish I understood this better prior to beginning my disastrous 6-1/2 year career as an AP. Any new player would benefit from understanding this. Current players typically would not, because current players for the most part, find themselves hooked on the action provided by the real machines when playing for real money, and at-home play is only limited to filling in slow days or getting a kick out of silly tournaments etc. like you see on videopoker.com.
Rob, I know people who have never had a royal flush. When are they due?
Due? Why'd you ask that? First, if they're using my strategy, which does not require a royal to win any session or to be ahead overall, then a royal-less life is of no consequence. But chances are they're either strict AP's or normal Joe players like you. So too bad they spent their lives playing inside casinos. If they had read about and followed my play-at-home-first advice, imagine how much they'd have saved by now.
We're not talking about your strategy, Rob. I think we are talking about the chances of getting a royal. Am I mistaken?
In a way we are, because without them most everyone loses each year. I think if you step back and look at the overall concept it might help. You're starting out; you go to casinos like everyone else; you most probably lose (unless you have magic fingers like arci, magic machines, and casino execs who don't care and simply look the other way if you take them for tens of thousands every year on grandfathered-in machines that they otherwise keep a keen eye on because of their controversial paytables) and you just are beside yourself.
OR....you could do what I recommend, and learn the game at home while playing a whole lot of hands. If you do well or close to it, stay home and play, because the math is being kind to you. But if not--and here's where you're big advantage comes into play--you simply head out to the casino, which is exactly where you want to be as you witness first hand the math working it's "magic" as it corrects all that losing that's been going on. Just as the AP's say it will.
It's that simple.
Rob-1 of the flaws with this is that I believe it is the machine, not the player, who achieves the long term results. My play is just 1 little blip on that machine, regardless of my play at home.
If you believe it is the player, not the machine, there may be some small degree of merit as illustrated in my heads or tails example earlier in this thread. However, the odds on each spin, roll, throw, etc. never change. But again, if you believe the math will even out, it has some merit.
I should add that I havent had a royal in years, and then only 2 in my lifetime. I played only for brief periods if craps was dead--until about 5 years ago when I began playing a lot of VP when I was barred from throwing the dice.
Hold on a second Rob. On the one hand you disagree with the whole concept of advantage play and the "long term" but here you are saying to adapt the concept of the long term by losing at home in practice sessions so that you will win at the casinos with real money when the long term moves all of those averages into proper place. Is that right?
No Rob, you're just poking fun at the whole idea of the math by proposing something that is just a fantasy.
The danger, Rob, is that someone might take this talk of yours as being serious.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)