Putting your faith in "the math." Really???

[Vegas Vic]

That's pretty selective for such an open and honest guy Vic, right?

Oct. is when I return to Pahrump, and there's no date set yet for when I, and I think jatki if he's still here, am going to have the time for the trip. The most exciting thing about it to tell you the truth, is being able to take the ZR1 out for a run while I'm there. But no date set. You see, you're not dealing with some slug you met at some video poker bar, some loser with nothing else to do like Mickey Crimm (and too bad he's broke btw) or a retiree who does nothing, like arci. plus I have a mobile wife and children/grandchildren, so this effort doesn't rank too high. I will, however, get the strategies up first. That oughta get your educational juices going as you wait for the backup.

I was pretty much in accord with your response (although I have no idea who Mickey Crimm is AND I am a retiree like yourself, so you can dispense with the retiree comparisons) until you just had to say "mobile wife". This repeated lack of respect for the spouse of a forum member is completely out of line. If you'd like to be taken seriously as an adult, then act like one.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you are nervous. & what is this you do, sit nervously at the keyboard all day long waiting to make more foolish statements that you never ever support or back up? Is Singer really right, are you so bored with life that that's all you can do? Man. No wonder he makes you mad, he never misses the nail.

What a bunch of silly statements. Wait, let me rephrase that. What a bunch of ridiculous lies. Do you know what I did today? If not, then how can you claim I "sit nervously at the keyboard all day long "? Obviously, you'd have to follow me around to know.

I could say a lot of things about you, but I would never claim to know what you do all day. Only a complete idiot would make that kind of claim.

PS. Since you're so interested, in addition to my usual stuff I played golf, bowled 5 games and played cards with some friends. What did you do?

[Alan Mendelson]

in addition to my usual stuff I played golf, bowled 5 games and played cards with some friends. What did you do?

Superman, no doubt about it.

[arcimede$]

Arc I just don't understand why you keep returning to this theme that you believe Singer is saying 2 + 2 = 5 ??? Where the heck does this come from??

Please give me a clear answer. I really want to know where you think he said the math of video poker is wrong??

Alan, when someone claims they can assure you can win on a negative game just by using a betting strategy, then they are saying the equivalent of 2+2=5. You keep saying Singer doesn't dispute the math, but look at this claim:

"I began the development by looking at that 100.17%, for instance, as TODAY'S ONLY return expectation, then proceeded to improve it."

Notice the highlighted words? the 100.17 value is a maximum value computed using simple arithmetic. There is no way to "improve it". In other words, unless 2+2 can be made equal to something other than 4.

Singer does this constantly if you read what he is saying. He claims he can improve the maximum return of a game. Hence, he is claiming that 2+2=5 (or pick any number greater than 4).

[Alan Mendelson]

Now, I understand your position. Okay. Let's look at it a different way. Let's use a coin flip as a simple example.

Over time, (let's say 100,000 flips), you should have half heads and half tails, or thereabouts. That gives you a 50% return of heads for a fair coin flip.

But suppose you happen to flip eight out of ten heads, do you still have a 50% return of heads? No, you have 80% heads.

The difference of course is that the measurement of "eight out of ten heads" is a short term measurement. Why can't you allow someone to use "short term results"?

You Arc, actually use short term results when you tell us about your wins and losses playing video poker. You report "of the last ten years" or "of the last 15 years."

I think this all comes down to Singer's "short term, win goal system." If you play a short term strategy, and cash out a winner in the short term, you will never fall victim to the long term? But of course you will argue there is no way to also be a short term winner on a negative expectation game. Yet, people do it every day.

[arcimede$]

Alan, there are differences between the past and the future. When stating what has happened all you are doing is relating an anecdotal experience. When stating what will happen there are only probabilities. No one can claim to improve the odds on what will happen by using a betting system. However, that is exactly what Singer does.

Have you forgotten about all the money you have lost over the years?

[Alan Mendelson]

You didn't answer my question, Arc.

And I would venture to say that probably 90% of the time I gambled and lost (session, trip, weekend) at some point I was ahead. Sometimes I was ahead by a lot. And had I quit when I was ahead, I would not have the losses that you refer to.

Again, it comes down to the win goal method, which you reject.

[arcimede$]

Alan, I gave you the answer. A short term result is simply one of many examples. You, like many people, tend to remember only a subset of your past play. You can always remember situations where you would have won. We've all had them. You don't tend to remember those things that don't fit your beliefs. Here's a true statement:

If you had only played on days where you ended up winning you would be way ahead at the present.

Absolutely true, right? So why did you gamble on those other days? You don't need win goals, all you have to do in the future is only gamble on the days where you will win.

I think you can appreciate the fallacy in this line of thinking. So, can you now see why your win goals won't help?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, how do you know? How do you know that enough people don't have enough sessions when -- at some point -- they were "up" enough to offset the negative games they were playing over time?

I don't know. But I look at surveys that show that something like 90% of players said they were ahead at some point during their trips, yet 95% leave as losers. What if the mindset of casinogoers changed so that they all quit when ahead, even by just one dollar? What would happen then?

The casinos spend gazillions of dollars to try to insure that we don't stop playing when we win.
They hand us cash or even ask if we want tickets when we get a hand pay. Why not a check? Because checks don't go into slot machines.
They ask us to play the machine again after a handpay to clear the jackpot.
They say "do it again" as they give us the handpay.
They hide the exits.
They flood the casinos with signs and lights and sounds of "winning."

The issue isn't do people win -- the issue is can people stop after they won.

The issue is not one of math. The issue is one of psychology. People do win playing negative expectation games. But can you make them stop after they won on this trip, the next trip and the trip after?

[jatki]

What a bunch of silly statements. Wait, let me rephrase that. What a bunch of ridiculous lies. Do you know what I did today? If not, then how can you claim I "sit nervously at the keyboard all day long "? Obviously, you'd have to follow me around to know.

I could say a lot of things about you, but I would never claim to know what you do all day. Only a complete idiot would make that kind of claim.

PS. Since you're so interested, in addition to my usual stuff I played golf, bowled 5 games and played cards with some friends. What did you do?

If I'm wrong arc then it wouldn't be so important to you what a no one thinks or says, and a normal person wouldn't go through all the hoops you do just so others don't have the same opinion about you. If I'm right, holy smokes! You'd do the same thing!

[redietz]

If Rob (or jakti or anybody) can improve upon expected optimal return over a significant number of hands (say, 500K or more), I'm sure I can rustle up some investors who will be willing to wager any amount they cannot.

Alan, I'm sure there's a reason you don't consult any professional mathematicians about all this, but if you'd like to put your cash on the line for a 500K hand demo bet, and you have 10 or 20K floating around you don't need, I'm positive I can arrange a gentleman's bet.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, I'm sure there's a reason you don't consult any professional mathematicians about all this, but if you'd like to put your cash on the line for a 500K hand demo bet, and you have 10 or 20K floating around you don't need, I'm positive I can arrange a gentleman's bet.

There is no need to contact any professional because I don't dispute what the math says. All I suggest is that it is possible that your personal results will not be what the math says.

Now redietz you are talking about "a significant number of hands" of 500K or more for your bet. Would you make the same bet if we were to play only five hands? Of course you wouldn't. Because in the short run anything could happen. Voila!!!

[jatki]

There is no need to contact any professional because I don't dispute what the math says. All I suggest is that it is possible that your personal results will not be what the math says.

Now redietz you are talking about "a significant number of hands" of 500K or more for your bet. Would you make the same bet if we were to play only five hands? Of course you wouldn't. Because in the short run anything could happen. Voila!!!

Makes perfect sense to me. What these guys can't see is if it can happen once it can happen any amount of times. I don't get why they say it can happen often, they know it can happen often, but then they say it has got to be that you'll lose if it is played as a single session too much. Even the coinflip can come up tails 500 times in a row. How likely that is doesn't matter. Like Singer says, videopoker is based on the math, but the game and its outcome is not based on math alone.

But Reidtz, 500,000 hands? Really? How would such a feat ever come off? My numbers at 500 hands every hour say that's a thousand hours. Unrealistic. Hows about putting up something doable and maybe you'll get a taker or two?

[Rob.Singer]

This is too funny. We stop to have a picnic, I take a leak then take a quick look here, and it never ends!

Jatki, nice job pinning down arci and working him over into backtracking and face-saving on his long-time lying about my training sessions. Just understand he has way too much pride & ego to admit anything that dims the light he thinks is so brightly shining down on him. But congrats....it was fun to read

Redietz, your offer--and it would have to be for at least $20k--makes me salivate, but jatki's right. Make it something we can actually do within a normal timeframe. What about the same type offer I made the Wizard and his crew of math geniuses and extremists? After weeks of them calling me more names than arci when I said I have and could consistently beat negative games, I offered to prove them wrong by saying we'd make a $25000 bet that I could win at least 7 out of 10 sessions playing my strategy AND I'd be ahead by at least an average of $2500/session played at the end. If I were ahead then the geniuses would have to pay me that amount in addition to the $25000. If I were did not win at least 7 sessions and if I were behind, then I would pay them the $25000 plus the amount I was behind. If I lost 4 sessions then I lost the $25000 even if I were ahead overall, which could be very possible if a huge win happened in one or more sessions. The entire pack of Einsteins ran away and I was asked to leave after that.

How's this sound?

[redietz]

I'm no sucker, Rob. My estimate is you should win closer to eight sessions out of 10.

[arcimede$]

There is no need to contact any professional because I don't dispute what the math says. All I suggest is that it is possible that your personal results will not be what the math says.

That is not the point. The point is can you make your future results profitable on negative machines by using win/loss stops. Remember the difference between past and future. No one cares about what has been done. They want to know what will happen in the future.

Now redietz you are talking about "a significant number of hands" of 500K or more for your bet. Would you make the same bet if we were to play only five hands? Of course you wouldn't. Because in the short run anything could happen. Voila!!!

Yes, and that "anything" also includes losing your ass.

[Alan Mendelson]

My estimate is you should win closer to eight sessions out of 10.

Let me ask you this. If it is possible to win eight sessions out of ten in one ten session trial, is it not possible to win eight sessions out of ten in the second ten session trial?

To paraphrase Arc, to think that the RNG would force you to lose after winning can only happen if the RNG were not random.

In a random game anything can happen.

[arcimede$]

Makes perfect sense to me. What these guys can't see is if it can happen once it can happen any amount of times. I don't get why they say it can happen often, they know it can happen often, but then they say it has got to be that you'll lose if it is played as a single session too much. Even the coinflip can come up tails 500 times in a row. How likely that is doesn't matter. Like Singer says, videopoker is based on the math, but the game and its outcome is not based on math alone.

Oh yeah, we forgot about the fairies and leprechauns. They must make all the difference.

But Reidtz, 500,000 hands? Really? How would such a feat ever come off? My numbers at 500 hands every hour say that's a thousand hours. Unrealistic. Hows about putting up something doable and maybe you'll get a taker or two?

Ever heard of multi-play machines? Geez, what mindless dribble.

With 100 play you can divide your 1000 hours by 100. Yup, a whopping 10 hours. Or just go with 10-play and take a little more time. Easily doable.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes, and that "anything" also includes losing your ass.

Exactly right. And the "anything" also includes winning a million dollars over ten years. I'm glad we finally resolved this.

Now, let's find out exactly what Rob's system is, okay?

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I would be careful with substituting a 100 play machine for playing 100 individual hands. If by chance a royal is dealt it will skew the results.

I was once dealt a royal on a 50-play machine, and one night at Caesars I was dealt quads no less than four times playing quarters on a 50 play machine. (Actually there was a fifth time, but on that machine I was only playing 20 lines.) The machines were side by side, and I played the other while waiting for the hand pays.