Why Won't Alan Consult a Mathematician?

[Rob.Singer]

All this arguing over 1/420 is moot also, because we began this discussion assuming 3377X were the ONLY dealt hand. And going for the quad certainly isn't a 1 in 420 chance, is it Mr. "tested genius", all math/all the time?

The guy will do virtually anything to make a discussion go on and on and on. God love him.

[arcimede$]

If we take Arci's claim at face and carry it through all the way, that 420th hand would be 420/420 or 100%. This is obviously not what he meant, or if it is, then I'm just going to watch someone else go 419 without and then jump in.

So Arci, despite rarely agreeing with you, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt to re-explain this.

I already did that in comment #79.

[arcimede$]

The issue is moot. Arci's trying and trying to say what would theoretically happen over the "long-term" if the special plays were never made. He comes up with a number of "extra hands", first without acknowledging that the special play may in fact hit the quad or any other smaller winner, then his theory pretends to know those supposed extras will include more credits that the special play will create.

Not true. Do you ever do anything but lie? I specially compared the chances of hitting a quad on the special play with hitting a quad not taking the special play. The extra credits I compute take into account the other possible wins in the special play. So, both of your claims are false.

And finally, we know for certain what the hand is that's in question, and we know for certain what the few various results can be. Those mysterious extra hands? Everything about them is all theory. Again we're back to the same AP nonsense of making believe long term theory trumps the reality of a single, actual hand. But don't exect him to come out of the fog anytime soon.

So, according to Singer 4 hands is now the 'long term". It just doesn't get sillier than that.

It interesting watching him scramble around telling one lie after another hoping someone will believe him.

[arcimede$]

I think I missed something. Was there ever any proof offered that holding two pair in games such as double double bonus (instead of holding just one high pair) would in fact give you more hands to play? There have been many times when dealt two pair in DDB and TDB that I never hit a full house.

I used the standard computations for expert play to make the comparison.

[Rob.Singer]

Arci you can't lie your way out of it--you have no idea how to look at anything this side of infinity. And the funniest part is, you're so bored you're overly obvious how you'll say anything just to keep the arguments going.

Squeak squeak

[Rob.Singer]

I think I missed something. Was there ever any proof offered that holding two pair in games such as double double bonus (instead of holding just one high pair) would in fact give you more hands to play? There have been many times when dealt two pair in DDB and TDB that I never hit a full house.

Alan, if you make the optimal play when dealt two pair in ANY game, into infinity, you'll always see extra hands because you held it. And that's the only way arci has of seeing this. He claims he isn't looking at this with his "long-term" eyes, but that's the limit of his archaic capabilities. When he throws out guesses like "10 extra hands" or "4 extra hands" hoping they'll somehow stick, he tries to pretend he's talking about just one hand, but unless you know the final outcome of the special play, his "analysis" is only and always about theory and the long term.

BTW, when I play DDBP with any paytable (10/6 included) and am dealt any two high pair with any other pair, I always keep the paying pair--even these days where I don't play any strict strategy. Why? Because that's the STRONG play for those who put winning money ahead of accumulating points.

[Alan Mendelson]

BTW, when I play DDBP with any paytable (10/6 included) and am dealt any two high pair with any other pair, I always keep the paying pair--even these days where I don't play any strict strategy. Why? Because that's the STRONG play for those who put winning money ahead of accumulating points.

Rob, I'm all for winning money, but it's easier to win a full house than it is to win quads. In games like Triple Double Bonus or Double Double Bonus or Royal Aces Bonus and you have a pair of aces, yes you try for the quad aces but you do that because the payoffs on quad aces makes it worth it. But do you do that with a pair of Kings? I don't think the risk to reward ratio justifies it.

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, I'm all for winning money, but it's easier to win a full house than it is to win quads. In games like Triple Double Bonus or Double Double Bonus or Royal Aces Bonus and you have a pair of aces, yes you try for the quad aces but you do that because the payoffs on quad aces makes it worth it. But do you do that with a pair of Kings? I don't think the risk to reward ratio justifies it.

Yes you do that with a pair of K's. These days when I get ahead I usually leave, and although my wins have have pretty big my aspirations are not. Four K's can do that for me and a FH cannot. Yes the quad is a longshot but look at it this way: To get the FH, you have 4 cards left out of 47 that'll do it for you. Think of what 47 cards look like spread out on your table, then think of the difficulty in selecting one of the 4 FH cards--for 45 credits or whatever, knowing holding the two K's pays the same as the two pair--which is more than likely what you'll end up with on a single pull anyway. And how are most quads hit? Yup, by holding a pair. Like I said, it all depends on what you're after in that one hand opportunity.

[Vegas Vic]

Your point? You essentially repeated exactly what I said trying to downplay part of it. However, you didn't refute anything I stated. The odds of hitting a quad are 1/420 for each and every hand. That doesn't change the FACT that for the next 10 hands the odds are 1/42. Or for the next 100 hands the odds are 1/4.2. If people thought they only had a 1/420 chance of ever hitting a quad I doubt they would play.

Next time if you have a point please make it more clear.

I apologize for arriving late to this dance. I don't jump into this forum every day.

The point is quite clear if you'd take a good look at what you said and what I've said. The odds of "the next 10 hands" are true on paper but are worthless when playing VP. The act of playing VP is one push of the button and the net results. No more, no less. If the odds of that one push is 1/420, it remains 1/420 regardless of whether or not that push is followed by another in the next 5 seconds or even if the next push takes place 5 months later.

You can entertain us with all the math formulas you can conjure up in order to support the projected odds over a finite set of plays, but the reality of VP is not based on such finite numbers. The 1/420 for each play remain true regardless of how many plays are yet to take place.

How about you? Since you know that the 1/420 chance of hitting a quad confronts every player (and excludes no one..even self proclaimed math whizzes), how soon will you quit playing VP?

[Rob.Singer]

Yes indeed, arci is again caught in another of his own traps. While he's been forced to admit that each & every hand has close to a 1 in 420 chance of hitting a quad--and further admitting that even an AP addict would quit rather than continue playing upon accepting that FACT--more backpedaling has found him now claiming it's the "1 in 42" or the "1 in 4.2" that keeps him pounding away.

How about the royal arci--is it really a "1 in 40,000" affair.....or do the AP's of the world think the royal also becomes more "due" the more you play? Give us the facts Mr. tested genius. Just the facts please.

[slingshot]

Yes you do that with a pair of K's. These days when I get ahead I usually leave, and although my wins have have pretty big my aspirations are not. Four K's can do that for me and a FH cannot. Yes the quad is a longshot but look at it this way: To get the FH, you have 4 cards left out of 47 that'll do it for you. Think of what 47 cards look like spread out on your table, then think of the difficulty in selecting one of the 4 FH cards--for 45 credits or whatever, knowing holding the two K's pays the same as the two pair--which is more than likely what you'll end up with on a single pull anyway. And how are most quads hit? Yup, by holding a pair. Like I said, it all depends on what you're after in that one hand opportunity.

I played about 10 different machines this a.m. and had absolutely terrible results. I held two pair ALL MORNING LONG and the only full houses I got were from holding a pair!

[Rob.Singer]

Bbbbbut....that's not what the math says will happen sling. And imagine what could have been if you chose just one pair to hold every time!

[regnis]

But if you played 8 billion hands...........it's still 1/420

[slingshot]

Bbbbbut....that's not what the math says will happen sling. And imagine what could have been if you chose just one pair to hold every time!

Hey, you know what? That just made me realize the TOTAL meaning of what you're saying. I had a good day-'cause any time you learn something, it's good. There's nothing like actually PLAYING to realize reality.

[Alan Mendelson]

Can I just sum up the difference about all this 1/420 stuff is? All of these other "numbers" are 1/42 over an additional ten hands and so forth is just more of the "expected return" type of math. It's the same type of math that says that when you sit down at a 9/6 Jacks or Better game your expected return is 99.54% -- that's all it is. And just like the expected return is always 99.54% at 9/6 Jacks the chance of a quads on any hand is always 1/420.

I know Arc criticized me in the past for using my apples and oranges analogies but this is another true case of apples and oranges.

As long as everyone agrees that the chance of getting quads on any individual hand is 1/420 (and everyone does agree) then the rest of it (1/42 for the next ten hands) doesn't matter.

[arcimede$]

It is truly interesting to watch all the mathematics deniers. And not even difficult math at that. I have provided you guys with now verified information on the mathematics that describes random VP play. Yet, here you all are denying its validity.

Stupid is as stupid does.

I can't think of anything else that accurately describes applying this denial of simple math to one's play. Of course, with Singer we all know he's trying to convince anyone he can that he hasn't been spewing nonsense all these years. That somehow the laws of the universe don't apply to VP. VP has its own physics. I can only laugh at him. However, one just wonders about the rest of you.

[arcimede$]

I know Arc criticized me in the past for using my apples and oranges analogies but this is another true case of apples and oranges.

As long as everyone agrees that the chance of getting quads on any individual hand is 1/420 (and everyone does agree) then the rest of it (1/42 for the next ten hands) doesn't matter.

Alan, it only matters if you want the people reading your website to understand the best approach to playing VP. As long as you don't care about that, then you are right, it "doesn't matter". OTOH, if you do care about the image you are building of yourself and this website ...

[Rob.Singer]

It was only a matter of time before arci's ridiculous Internet searches to make believe he impresses and lies caught up with him. So Mr. Math....Mr. FACTS....got so rattled by his meandering posts that he ended up claiming quads are more "due" the more hands you play Yes he has a ton to deal with these days, but it sure was SWEET watching him come apart at the seams yet again!

Another champagne toast anyone?1

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually, Arc, the only thing I care about is that this forum allows free and open discussion without insults. So please stop calling people stupid. And please do continue to tell us what is wrong with our thinking. Thanks.

[redietz]

My reading comprehension must be going to hell, because I never read Arci saying anything of the sort.

Arci, it became apparent to everyone but you months ago that the probability of Alan jettisoning his Singer commitment is a smidgeon above Blutarsky's grade point average. Even if Alan discovers "Rob Singer" is a complete whack job, Alan's going to try to take some nugget of gold from Rob's presentations and hype it as a good thing. It could be win goals, stop losses, discipline, attitude, and so on. I really doubt we're ever going to hear Alan say, "Rob Singer wasn't credible." Now personally, I think the anti-casino fervor of "Mr. Singer" is to be commended, so even I have something good to say about him.

If Alan were interested in the undeniable truth, or at least people's opinions of the undeniable truth, he would have asked a polling question at Wizard of Odds along the lines of, "So, do you think Rob Singer's systems are credible?" Certainly the thought had to cross Alan's mind to do so -- he's a journalist. But he didn't ask anything of the sort. Instead he asked for opinions regarding win goals. Hmmmmm.

We're still waiting on Rob's various promised analyses and proofs. Promised release dates have come and gone. Ho hum -- who's surprised? We're not going to see this stuff. I recommend "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger, the father of cognitive dissonance, as an explanation for Alan.

For Rob, I have no explanation. He's a man's man, the undeniable one, the top cat when it comes to video poker.