Bob 21 wrote:
" Btw, I truelly find Moses jokes pretty funny. Moses was always my favorite poster over BJTF, until he got the boot and sent to zenzone."
That is more than enough information for me, I rest my case!
Bob 21 wrote:
" Btw, I truelly find Moses jokes pretty funny. Moses was always my favorite poster over BJTF, until he got the boot and sent to zenzone."
That is more than enough information for me, I rest my case!
What I'm doing is going home with a profit. Since when is it wrong to go home with a profit?
Or, should I keep playing till I lose $8800 on a game when I think I have an edge?
But you trapped me mickeycrimm. I didn't want to debate this. This is how I play. You play your way. Others should play their way. If they want to lose $29,000 in a week and call it variance it's fine by me. I can't afford to lose $29,000 in a week, or $8800 in a day.
I'll take my small profits and go.
That's not exactly right.
Cashing out with a ten dollar profit today, and then cashing out another ten dollar profit tomorrow gives you a total of $20.
The difference between you and me is that I subscribe to the theory that everyone is ahead at some point -- and the trick is to cash out when you have a profit.
Take this morning for example. I just came back from Red Rock where I had $15 of free play. I did get as high as $42.50 playing 25-cent 8/5 Bonus thanks to several full houses, but I cashed out $21.25 and using points had their players club breakfast.
I wonder if the AP who lost $8800 in a day was ever ahead?
Yeah, I've had days when I was never ahead but the stop loss or loss limit prevents you from digging a hole you can't climb out of.
Try it.
Alan Mendelson wrote:
"What I'm doing is going home with a profit. Since when is it wrong to go home with a profit?"
Well if you drove a total of 3 hours both ways to go home and rest and then return the next morning at a cost of $25 for gas. However, if you stayed and played the previous night at the same machine for 5 more hours with an negative expectation hourly loss of a just say $1 an hour "regardless of whatever actual result" Mickey was right you saved $5 because you did go home and the driving expenses was a wash anyway as you still had to leave at some point and return at some later point in time.
Well, I live 2.3 miles from Red Rock and 1.6 miles from Suncoast. Going home is easy.
The key number from that interview with gaming author Vic Royer is that 86% of players are ahead at some point during their trip.
86-percent.
We got the beginning of this story, then the middle, on the first post. Now we’re just waiting for the end if we ever even get it.
I guess to AP’s this is like another 9/11. But 18 pages later does anyone really give a fuck.
Imagine being an AP and going through life thinking the results of this play might have an impact on your future.
Just the fact that every once in awhile a profitable AP story pops up but seems to get debunked rather quickly, and that particular play vanishes forever. That is of course if the winners of the play even get the money they won in the first place.
I know AP’s want us to believe that 6 figure wins are all over the place happening every day. But I believe Mickeys 2-bit wins are the only AP moves that could be consistent.
I believe most forum AP’s are just on these forums to try and convince anyone that’ll listen how smart and wealthy they are, with their main objective to convince themselves they didn’t make a bad choice deciding to live their lives counting on beating casino games to support their families.
Typical ap family conversation:
“Honey, had a good day at the casino today go pick up that washer machine.” Three weeks later, “sorry honey no dryer yet, just hang in there. I have 8K stored in plus-ev, and that should be kicking in any day now.”
Let's address Mr. Mendelson first. I am sick of repeating this, but there are new posters, so here we go.
The reasons Mr. Mendelson's support of and spewing of voodoo gambling opinions is so egregious, and so wrong, and so irresponsible are:
1) He is a top notch journalist. He knows where to find the experts, how to vet the experts, and how to interview the experts.
2) He could therefore track down, interview, and share information from any probability professors, game theory experts, and people with doctorates and math teaching experience.
3) He could also, therefore, access expertise and share it with everyone on these forums. He is a journalist. He has clout and followers.
Instead, Mr. Mendelson:
1) For decades, purposefully avoids accessing or interviewing probability, game theory, and gambling expertise.
2) Provides video access to people promoting voodoo math. Publicizing them facilitates their ideas.
3) Provides public access to people using anecdotal stories or personal histories as substitutes for cause-and-effect and/or math.
4) Posts again and again his personal opinions, arguing for this and that, even though he himself has no math, game theory, or gambling expertise.
The fact that he does this is maddening because he is and has always been positioned to gather and provide good, accurate, vetted information from experts. He has chosen not to do that. That in and of itself would not be a bad thing, but substituting his expertise-less opinions for good information has the potential to do harm.
Here's where I will briefly tie blackhole into this. Blackhole argues that the APs spin their stories into Disney-fied tales of success. That kind of rosy spinning has the potential to draw in the naïve and set them on a yellow brick road to disaster. I more-than-halfway agree with that. If blackhole's going to come down on APs for that, then he should certainly be all over Mr. Mendelson for spewing voodoo math and bad ideas that will certainly set people down a bad yellow brick road.
Then we come to the question of, "Why does Mr. Mendelson choose to promulgate voodoo instead of consulting experts?" I have only theories.
1) It's a kind of arrogance, where he values his own anecdotal gambling experiences over gambling expertise.
2) He doesn't really want anyone to win. I can't argue with this one. I'm not sure I want people to win, other than those who are my partners. I have a rule where anyone who's versus the casinos, I try to help, but I usually tell them what NOT to do. I don't explain how or why I do things.
3) Mr. Mendelson's some kind of casino avatar/shill/sycophant.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. It's Mr. Mendelson's position as a respected journalist who spews voodoo concepts that I find maddening. I'm an old journalism major, and I did work for a couple of newspapers in my youth. Mr. Mendelson could have gone in any direction with his gambling advice decades ago, and this is the path he chose. He could dial up half a dozen game theory experts tomorrow and go in a different direction. He probably will not.
Now, on to blackhole.
I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm only obliquely an "AP," but you will not find one post where I said what I do is easy. You will not find one post where I said what I do can be duplicated by any reasonably intelligent person. You will not find one post where I recommend other people do what I do.
In fact, I'm not sure you'll even find a post where I recommend sports gambling as a new path or option for anybody on this forum. It can be beaten, but I don't recommend it.
It's incredibly difficult, you have to be extraordinarily disciplined, you have to be in top physical shape so you can apply yourself round-the-clock.
The very first interview I gave, back in 1979, I was asked what advice I had for those interested in betting on sports. My answer was "That's easy. Don't."
Someone asked me later what was required to win at sports gambling, and my response was, "Oh, off the top of my head, be in the top 1% of the population in any kind of intelligence test. Be in the top 1% in cardio fitness so you can work round the clock. Grow up in an area that's steeped in football, so you can learn the stats of the game before you turn 12. And be street wise, because you need to be one step ahead of everybody else."
No yellow brick road, blackhole. It's damned difficult. I'm wrong 44% of the time, and proud of it.
As usual, this "Rob Singer person" changed what Axelwolf said to suit himself. Axel never said -EV players consistently lose and +EV players consistently win. That is your word and you inserting it is a big lie. That's all you have lies and make up stuff.
Now if you substitute this word you put in that axel never said "consistently" with the phrase "in the long-term" or "long run", then you have Axelwolf's meaning. AP's think long-term because that is when the mathematics kicks in. No AP would ever say something like "consistently".
Non-AP's (losing or -EV players) focus on short-term results, where anything can and will occur. THAT is variance. Your Mistake, Singer/Argentino, and I don't think it is a mistake at all but rather the intentional scam that you consistently (<- ) push is that you can take a bunch of "short-terms" and equate them to "long-term" when it doesn't work that way. Again the easy example is a player can easily win 2 or 3 spins on roulette playing black, but try doing that every day for a year. A bunch of small, short-term results does not equal long-term. THAT is NOT the way the math works, except for in your alternative universe.
And as per you last point, I did just that last year. I re-evaluated my machine play, which was totally dependent on not the slot club points, but very much related mailer offers to bump the whole exercise into +EV territory, and decided that with tightening conditions, it was no longer worth it to me and have all but stopped that part of my supplemental AP play. My machine play now is very small, just a small amount of play to generate some food offers. It's not a money maker. Might even be slightly losing proposition than if I just went a head and paid cash for my meals. I will continue to re-evaluate and decide that.
That’s my point reditz. AP’s don’t care about the rosy spinning that draws naïve newbies onto the yellow brick road to disaster. Their only concern is to give off a godly or Einstein persona. Sadly, it’s a false image eventually doomed for failure.
It makes no sense for them to be on any forum other than they could brag about it to help their own mental problems from failing throughout their lives.
At least they get to brag on gambling forums and don’t have to worry about proving anything.
Alan you can take your little shots at me, but the fact is the math is on my side.
The formula for what I make a year is amount of money wagered x my advantage. That means the more I play, the more I will make. If I stop playing and reduce my total play (total amount of money wagered), regardless of whether the reason is because I am taking a vacation, have some health issue that prevents me from playing, and/or I decide to adhere to some silly little daily stop limit, all I have done is reduce what my total amount won will be.
Again, the more I play, the more I will win in the end (longterm).
Now along the way, that total result will go up and down. Best analogy is just like the stock market. Daily ups and downs. Weekly ups and downs. Non of that matters. What matters is the longterm. And in the end, the more you play (with an advantage) the more you will win. The math guarantees it.
I am sorry that you can't or won't understand the math. But frankly not surprised, when what you are probably best known for is a mathematical improbability so humongous, it is basically an impossibility.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a -EV player (losing player) going home with a profit. As a matter of fact you should do so EVERY chance you get. if you put a dollar in a machine and win your first spin, resulting in $1.25....you SHOULD get up and go home. Because every spin you take further it becomes more likely you will lose. Not trying to be nasty....those are just the hard cold facts.
Now for a +EV player the exact opposite is true. Every spin he takes it becomes more likely he will win, so he should keep playing as long as he is playing at an advantage.
While you make fun of it, this is exactly how it works. Given enough trials (long-term) advantage and expectation (or what I like to call accumulated EV) will come together. It's a mathematical certainty!
Remember that line from the movie Titanic after the ship hit the iceberg. "No matter what we do from this point on, in a couple hours this will all be at the bottom of the Atlantic. It is a mathematical certainty".
That is exactly what we have here and I am really sorry that some of you don't have the ability to understand that, so you mock what you don't understand.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)