Card-Counting Is A Waste Of Time For Real Profitting

[Alan Mendelson]

Just persistent, Moses.

[Moses]

Just persistent, Moses.

LMAO. Yes...you are.

[Mission146]

Mickeycrimm wrote this:

Yes loss rebates influence the amount of money lost. But how does the loss rebate affect the amount of money won on each wager? Does a loss rebate increase payoffs on wagers?

Are you going to call me a dumass or moron or idiot for pointing out your error?

It does increase the payoff on a wager if you’re sure they’re going to honor the rebate. Again, looking at it from a single bet standpoint, you put a million on the table, but you were never going to lose a million. You were only going to lose $800,000, so effectively, you’re betting a million to win a million, but you’re only risking $800,000 to win a million.

Admittedly, this assumes they would definitely make good on the rebate.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan-I look at it this way. If I win, I have more $$ in the pocket. If I lose and get a rebate, I have more $$ in the pocket than I would have had without the rebate. So that is like a win. It's as if I played one more hand at 20% of my loss and won it. I still lost, but I lost 20% less.

That's right. No dispute about that. But the point I was making and a point Rob made was that you still had to win your bets. Otherwise loss rebates only reduced your losses.

Now mickeycrimm who seems to always want the last word is saying about loss rebates:

"But it does influence the amount of money you win or lose per the same amount of total wager."

Well that's only partially correct. Loss rebates do impact your losses but they do not impact the payoffs on wins. Now perhaps you have more money to bet because of loss rebates but that's not what mickeycrimm wrote.

Loss rebates take a bit of the sting out of losing bets. Big whoop. That's similar to all the hot-shot WoV "ap's" who claim they went to the Revel $100k freeplay loss rebate expecting to lose just so they could take advantage of it....except the few who were actually there (the "I went to Woodstock!" syndrome) got thrown out for ignoring the terms & conditions of play.

The whole very clear point was, only an idiot goes into a casino to play expecting to lose. DJ doesn't do that and I don't do that. Rebates rarely turn a losing session into a winner. If DJ's betting 5 & 6 figures, the rebate would never be enuf to make him stop at a borderline result. It's his actual play results that matter and dictate his stopping point.

As for the idea that "going into" the session is "+EV" because of some rebate, that's ludicrous and irrelevant. If you don't have a good plan and strategy prior to beginning your play, all the indirect theoretical EV in the world means zippo if you aren't winning your bets. It's no different than the ap's who get all wet and bothered when they see some slot or VP progressive move into +EV territory. They might enjoy going after it, but if they are not the one to hit it, all those beautiful +EV phantom bucks will do them zero good at Von's tomorrow.

Or, you could do what every AP has always done on forums whenever they work up enuf courage to announce they just had a bad losing session: tell everybody that they went back the next day and won even more!....a surefire way to get racing, worried hearts back in line. And yes---even though they find the words difficult to spit out---what they're really saying is they were "due".

[mcap]

Alan....with a 100% $500 loss rebate on craps I bet $500. If there was no rebate, I bet $0-$10. So with the rebate, I win $500 if the bet wins with the rebate. I win at least 49x more with the rebate on a winning roll than without the rebate. Do you see how the rebate affects winning rolls, do you comprehend that English?

[Moses]

Or, you could do what every AP has always done on forums whenever they work up enuf courage to announce they just had a bad losing session: tell everybody that they went back the next day and won even more!"

You mean like? I lost $1700 yesterday. I had the winning team. But the game was Suspended from the night before until the next morning. So to everyone else I broke even (got my money back). But to me, o hell no. I lost $1700 because I got $2200 back on a team that won and ticket worth $3952 if they did? A $1,752 technicality. Ironic, two other guys lost their money on the Mets. But at another sportsbook. Hmmm. I wonder how many would've just thrown away their losing ticket that was worth a refund.

I wish I could tell you I made it back. But I just wait until the next game fits. AP is not so much about winning but avoiding and overcoming getting ripped off. What a pisser! But I got my points.

[kewlJ]

Alan. My hat goes off to you. Your shit stirring abilities are clearly the best I've ever seen. There was a poster posing as a blackjack playing muslim phsycologist from the midwest that always had everyone going. IMO, it wasn't a real person. But it went on for years. He isn't even in your league.

Zeebabar is a real person, Moses. Hard to believe, I know. I know this because I have seen his entry and picture in O.S.N. Devastating entry, with a very clear picture, precisely because he is such an idiot.

[Moses]

I go against conventional wisdom when it comes to blackjack. For instance, the game is one lifelong session. I hate that statement. So what, at your funeral, someone stands and says, "well Jack spent most of his days sitting at a blackjack table and he almost made it back to being in the black"? Even the most dedicated player probably doesn't play a million hands in his/her lifetime. I have, but I wouldn't mind getting 1/2 of them back before I played it as a game of people with the use of cards.

C'mon man. I'm in control. I play when conditions are right or ripe. The session ends when conditions are no longer right or ripe. In other words, I choose when my ass hits leather and when my legs stroll away. I let the game come to me. Quite often, "just one more." And then I swat while others have already punched themselves out.

[Moses]

Alan. My hat goes off to you. Your shit stirring abilities are clearly the best I've ever seen. There was a poster posing as a blackjack playing muslim phsycologist from the midwest that always had everyone going. IMO, it wasn't a real person. But it went on for years. He isn't even in your league.

Zeebabar is a real person, Moses. Hard to believe, I know. I know this because I have seen his entry and picture in O.S.N. Devastating entry, with a very clear picture, precisely because he is such an idiot.

LOL. I would pay 5 bucks to see that picture. He's got to be a piece of work. Was his finger in his nose?

[mickeycrimm]

Mickeycrimm wrote this:

"But it does influence the amount of money you win or lose per the same amount of total wager."

Yes loss rebates influence the amount of money lost. But how does the loss rebate affect the amount of money won on each wager? Does a loss rebate increase payoffs on wagers?

Are you going to call me a dumass or moron or idiot for pointing out your error?

I'm not in error. You are. Go back and read post 146. This time try to comprehend it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Mickeycrimm wrote this:

Yes loss rebates influence the amount of money lost. But how does the loss rebate affect the amount of money won on each wager? Does a loss rebate increase payoffs on wagers?

Are you going to call me a dumass or moron or idiot for pointing out your error?

It does increase the payoff on a wager if you’re sure they’re going to honor the rebate. Again, looking at it from a single bet standpoint, you put a million on the table, but you were never going to lose a million. You were only going to lose $800,000, so effectively, you’re betting a million to win a million, but you’re only risking $800,000 to win a million.

Admittedly, this assumes they would definitely make good on the rebate.

Perhaps I'm using different definitions than you? Wager = amount bet. Payoff = odds that the bet is paid.

What I was saying, for example, is that a blackjack wouldn't be paid at 6:2 instead of 3:2 because of a loss rebate.

Yes if you increased your bets because you had some rebated money you would win more but mickeycrimm specifically said "the same amount of total wager."

[jbjb]

I'll make this easier, maybe, for you. Your free play is exactly what a loss rebate is.

[mickeycrimm]

Alan-I look at it this way. If I win, I have more $$ in the pocket. If I lose and get a rebate, I have more $$ in the pocket than I would have had without the rebate. So that is like a win. It's as if I played one more hand at 20% of my loss and won it. I still lost, but I lost 20% less.

That's right. No dispute about that. But the point I was making and a point Rob made was that you still had to win your bets. Otherwise loss rebates only reduced your losses.

Now mickeycrimm who seems to always want the last word is saying about loss rebates:

"But it does influence the amount of money you win or lose per the same amount of total wager."

Well that's only partially correct. Loss rebates do impact your losses but they do not impact the payoffs on wins. Now perhaps you have more money to bet because of loss rebates but that's not what mickeycrimm wrote.

Loss rebates take a bit of the sting out of losing bets. Big whoop. That's similar to all the hot-shot WoV "ap's" who claim they went to the Revel $100k freeplay loss rebate expecting to lose just so they could take advantage of it....except the few who were actually there (the "I went to Woodstock!" syndrome) got thrown out for ignoring the terms & conditions of play.

The whole very clear point was, only an idiot goes into a casino to play expecting to lose. DJ doesn't do that and I don't do that. Rebates rarely turn a losing session into a winner. If DJ's betting 5 & 6 figures, the rebate would never be enuf to make him stop at a borderline result. It's his actual play results that matter and dictate his stopping point.

As for the idea that "going into" the session is "+EV" because of some rebate, that's ludicrous and irrelevant. If you don't have a good plan and strategy prior to beginning your play, all the indirect theoretical EV in the world means zippo if you aren't winning your bets. It's no different than the ap's who get all wet and bothered when they see some slot or VP progressive move into +EV territory. They might enjoy going after it, but if they are not the one to hit it, all those beautiful +EV phantom bucks will do them zero good at Von's tomorrow.

Or, you could do what every AP has always done on forums whenever they work up enuf courage to announce they just had a bad losing session: tell everybody that they went back the next day and won even more!....a surefire way to get racing, worried hearts back in line. And yes---even though they find the words difficult to spit out---what they're really saying is they were "due".

More ignorant blather from the King of Ignorant Blather.

[Moses]

More ignorant blather from the King of Ignorant Blather.

Classic. LMAO.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan....with a 100% $500 loss rebate on craps I bet $500. If there was no rebate, I bet $0-$10. So with the rebate, I win $500 if the bet wins with the rebate. I win at least 49x more with the rebate on a winning roll than without the rebate. Do you see how the rebate affects winning rolls, do you comprehend that English?

There are no 100% rebates and there are craps sessions when you might never win a single bet. How's that English?

[AxelWolf]

Alan....with a 100% $500 loss rebate on craps I bet $500. If there was no rebate, I bet $0-$10. So with the rebate, I win $500 if the bet wins with the rebate. I win at least 49x more with the rebate on a winning roll than without the rebate. Do you see how the rebate affects winning rolls, do you comprehend that English?

There are no 100% rebates and there are craps sessions when you might never win a single bet. How's that English?

There have been, and there will be.

[tableplay]

Alan....with a 100% $500 loss rebate on craps I bet $500. If there was no rebate, I bet $0-$10. So with the rebate, I win $500 if the bet wins with the rebate. I win at least 49x more with the rebate on a winning roll than without the rebate. Do you see how the rebate affects winning rolls, do you comprehend that English?

There are no 100% rebates and there are craps sessions when you might never win a single bet. How's that English?

Alan, for a 20% loss rebate example, let's use 99.17% bonus poker, which, except for the two or three major mistakes you make every 40 hands or so, you play perfectly. Thus, with no loss rebate (and without your players club card inserted), you can expect to lose at least 83 cents for every 100 dollars you play through on this game.

Now there are two outcomes for each deal-draw resolution (let's be generous and assume you never make mistakes):
1) You win or break even with probability 45.51%
2) You lose, with probability 54.49%

As stated above, with no loss rebate, this is a losing game (83 cents per $100 coin-in):
Expected_Value=ExpectedValue_of_nonlosinghands +(Probability of loss)*(amount lost)=$53.65-$54.49=-$0.83
Under the conditions of a 20% loss rebate let's see what the loss is per $100 coin-in:
Expected_Value=ExpectedValue_of_nonlosinghands +(Probability of loss)*(amount lost)*.80=$53.65-$43.59=$10.06

Wow, what a difference Alan ?! With no loss rebate, you lose 83 cents per 100 dollars wagered and with a 20% loss rebate you
win $10.06 for that same 100 dollars wagered! This assumes, of course, that you make no errors and that you play 99.17%
Bonus Poker exclusively, and that each loss is reimbursed 20%.

[Dankyone]

Hi tableplay.

Believe me, I’m on your side, but this analysis is overly simplistic and does not account for the fact that VP is not a win/lose game. Not every winning hand pays the same. Do you ever play video poker?

Alan doesn’t understand your math anyway, but please try again.

[mickeycrimm]

Alan, I receive 100 coupons for a 20% loss rebate on each bet at roulette. I go to the roulette wheel and 100 times I bet black for $100.

18/38 means I have a 47.37% chance to win each bet and a 52.63% chance to lose each bet.

So in 100 spins the expectation is to win 47.37 times which would pay $4737.
The expectation would also be to lose 52.63 times which would cost me only $80 each time. That would be a loss of $4210

So the expectation is to WIN $527 on the play (4737 minus 4210).

Without the 20% loss rebates the expectation would be to LOSE $527 ($10,000 x 5.27%).

You are right that the loss rebates won't help you hit black. But you lose less money when it doesn't hit.

So would you rather play it with or without the loss rebates?

I know. Your answer is "I don't play roulette."

BUMP

Alan, per the above:

Scenario A. You make 100 bets of $100 each on black with a 20% loss rebate on each bet.

Scenario B. You make 100 bets of $100 each on black with no loss rebates.

In scenario A you have an expectation of a $527 profit.
In scenario B you have an expectation of a $527 loss.

In both scenarios you make the exact same total wager, $10,000 (100X100). For the exact same total wager you have an expected profit in scenario A but an expected loss in scenario B.

This is what I meant by "same amount of total wager." Alan, you never answered my question either. Which scenario would you prefer, A or B?

[Dankyone]

Thanks Mickey. Red/Black is different from VP.

But Alan doesn’t play roulette LOL