A VP Promotion That Went Down During My Absence.
The player is Mr. Bob Dancer. He wrote a column that explained the promo was at the M and the object was to put more moola through the machines in a few days than anyone else, and you would be awarded a new $40k Range Rover. There were all kinds of minor mind games being played such as did he have an "in" with the employees so they could keep him abreast of other player totals and things of that nature, but for the purposes of the discussion I'm only going with known facts.
His game of choice was 50-play 8/5 BP. I'm not sure how he created it but he claims there was a 1.6% "advantage" to the play, and that if he put a few million through he'd get the car. He ended up putting $2.5million through, he won the car, but he lost $80,000 in cash by playing for it.
Interesting but not a part of this, is that Singer chimed in that he knew Dancer had up to 3 partners in this with him for backing and that he personally knows 2 of them who told him so. Also interesting is that there's all kinds of speculation as to the "cost" of winning that car such as taxes, does it need to be registered/titled to re-sell to the dealer, has the car automatically devalued like all cars that leave the lots do, what commission the dealer might charge, etc. etc.
Here's the main point: Was this worth it, and was it one of those "good plays" that AP's constantly chirp about? And here's my opinion: It was out-&-out dumb. First off, doesn't a guy that age have anything better to do with his time in his declining years? Has he no real life? Then, what's with this theoretical 1.6% "advantage" anyway? That's what gets me. When people talk of those edges they KNOW they're talking what it theoretically "might be" given flawless play into infinity, or at least tens of millions of hands at the very least. They also KNOW that number of hands will not be reached in the amount of time this promotion is for. So why all the fake cloak & dagger nonsense about a non-existent edge? I believe he went into this just like everyone goes into a casino, hoping for some good luck along the way. This "1.6% edge" baloney is just that, because it's the machines and the casino that hold that parameter and not the individual player, who walks into any casino for the short term ride and that's it.
Quote: JerryLoganThen, what's with this theoretical 1.6% "advantage" anyway? That's what gets me. When people talk of those edges they KNOW they're talking what it theoretically "might be" given flawless play into infinity, or at least tens of millions of hands at the very least. They also KNOW that number of hands will not be reached in the amount of time this promotion is for. This "1.6% edge" baloney is just that, because it's the machines and the casino that hold that parameter and not the individual player, who walks into any casino for the short term ride and that's it.
I'm not sure about this instance you are referring to with Bob Dancer but I have had this discussion several times with a friend of mine. His mantra is "what do the odds matter if you lose" and is of the opinion that we only gamble a short period of time and a percent or two makes no difference.
Yes when you go in to a casino your are gambling for the short term and aren't approaching the total volume the casino sees every day. I think it would be accurate to say though that no one on this site has gone into a casino once and then never gambled again. Most of us are already well into the long run and manage our odds the same way a casino does, striving to maximize our edge or at least minimize our disadvantage.
The only reason a strategy such as yours with video poker would work is because you found some sort of glitch in the software of the machine, which could be possible, and if that's the case I congratulate you and Mr. Singer. I think it's more likely that for every successful one of you using such a system (and barring a computer glitch) there are several others who went broke and have continued with their lives, not bothering to post on a forum their embarassing miscalculations.
To demonstrate the significance of a "theoretical edge" and the importance of the long run I would like to ask you a question. If you had to bet your life savings, say 1 million dollars, and could choose to bet on one coin flip for a million that paid you 1.1 million on a win, or bet $10 on 100,000 (well short of millions or infinity) coin flips that pay $10.50 on a win, which would you choose?
A 1.6% advantage is real. It's close to the house edge on a place bet on 6 or 8, or the house edge against the average blackjack player. The house counts on that edge, and does very well by it. An AP--at whatever game he might be playing--is in a position no different than the house. He may lose on any given day, but that doesn't mean much--he will win in the long run, just like the house wins against the players who place the 6 and 8.
An edge of 1.6% is hardly nonexistent (the word doesn't have a hyphen in it). It's what makes table games profitable. But this has already been explained to you many times, Mr. Singer---the real point of your post was to take another swipe at your arch-enemy, Bob Dancer.
Quote: mkl654321if you already have your mind made up, Mr. Singer, why are you asking the question?
A 1.6% advantage is real. It's close to the house edge on a place bet on 6 or 8, or the house edge against the average blackjack player. The house counts on that edge, and does very well by it. An AP--at whatever game he might be playing--is in a position no different than the house. He may lose on any given day, but that doesn't mean much--he will win in the long run, just like the house wins against the players who place the 6 and 8.
An edge of 1.6% is hardly nonexistent (the word doesn't have a hyphen in it). It's what makes table games profitable. But this has already been explained to you many times, Mr. Singer---the real point of your post was to take another swipe at your arch-enemy, Bob Dancer.
I'm overjoyed that you call me someone so famous. Thank you!
On that 1.6% you're making no sense because not only are you unqualified to explain it, it's easy to see how you're making it up on the go again. No machine or table player has an edge for a small number of plays. It's only calculated in the theoretical long-term. That's what got Dancer into trouble and if you read him often enough, you'd see he falls into the same trap over and over again. His mistake is trying to convince his readers that he has magical wins in-between his losses, which is highly unbelievable given his level of compulsion.
Here's a good hint for you to ponder. If Dancer were so feared in that he wins more of these promos than he loses and wins money hand over foot, there'd be no way they'd allow him in on the action. If a casino can figure a way to make a profit off of any individual player then they impose a ban, and he is not banned from playing anywhere. Oh, I forgot, it seems it has not scared the casinos out of having these promotions in the first place!
Try again.
Quote: MathExtremistThe 1.6% advantage obviously includes the value of the car. 8/5 Bonus has an edge of -0.834%. Over 2.5M, Dancer should have lost just under 21k. If he knew he'd win the car at that play level, it's the equivalent of saying "I'm going to pay 21k +/- 59k to buy a 40k car". In other words, the price of the 40k car will either be 80k, or -38k (that is, the car is free and comes with 38k in the trunk). That's a *great* deal if you can accept the variance. In this case, it appears he came out behind. Losing 80k on 2.5M is a 3.2% loss rate -- far, far worse than optimal play on an 8/5 Bonus game, so he was very unlucky. That's the nature of betting. He still had the best of it.
So please explain how he had "the best of it". I don't care if the machine I'm playing has a -2% or +2% theoretical. The only thing that matters is how I did when I'm done. This notion that it's OK to lose because you had some sort of mythical edge over an infinite amount of hands when you're only playing a very tiny portion of that, is nothing more than feel-good justification when you lose.
Quote: teddysI wouldn't have done it, but Bob Dancer is sui generis. In one of his columns, he talks about doing a promotion at Railroad Pass where he lost some untold 10's of Ks on some minuscule edge. He went back for months in a row getting takeout meals with his comp dollars. There is no one quite as crazy as him.
Clearly then, he has little class and has no concern for how to treat a wife, even if it IS a relationship built around gambling. Railroad Pass has putrid food in their Steakhouse, and that's their best dining.
Quote: JerryLoganTry again.
To convince you? Naah. Not worth the effort.
As far as letting Dancer play the promo, it didn't cost them a dime, since they had already determined that SOMEONE would win the car--in fact, they profited more from having Dancer play, because it increased their overall coin-in on -EV machines. That didn't mean that the play wasn't profitable for Dancer overall (regardless of the actual result), as MathExtremist tried (probably futilely) to explain to you.
Dancer's play was profitable regardless of whether or not he actually won the car, just like a crap table is profitable whether or not it loses on a given day. This is true no matter how many times you refuse to see it.
Quote: mkl654321To convince you? Naah. Not worth the effort.
As far as letting Dancer play the promo, it didn't cost them a dime, since they had already determined that SOMEONE would win the car--in fact, they profited more from having Dancer play, because it increased their overall coin-in on -EV machines. That didn't mean that the play wasn't profitable for Dancer overall (regardless of the actual result), as MathExtremist tried (probably futilely) to explain to you.
Dancer's play was profitable regardless of whether or not he actually won the car, just like a crap table is profitable whether or not it loses on a given day. This is true no matter how many times you refuse to see it.
What you just did was get surprised by ME's input and fail to quantify it. "Dancer's play was profitable regardless of whether or not he actually won the car"? Then what is that $80,000, chicken soup? He has no guarantee that if it were to be held again that he wouldn't lose again. But that doesn't matter. Saying he won money when he lost money is absurd, even for you.
Quote: JerryLoganSo please explain how he had "the best of it". I don't care if the machine I'm playing has a -2% or +2% theoretical. The only thing that matters is how I did when I'm done. This notion that it's OK to lose because you had some sort of mythical edge over an infinite amount of hands when you're only playing a very tiny portion of that, is nothing more than feel-good justification when you lose.
"Having the best of it" means having a mathematical advantage. The mathematical advantage is real, and is what makes casinos profitable. If it was as "mythical" as you keep saying, casinos wouldn't be able to keep their doors open. And yes, it is possible for a player to gain a similar mathematical advantage. As Dancer did. As MathExtremist took the trouble to explain to you.
It isn't "mythical". The casino considers it "OK to lose" because they know they will win in the long run. So does the AP.
The difference between a +EV game and a -EV game is that you are more likely to be ahead with the +EV game than with the -EV game when you are done. Certainly, you can lose when playing +EV, and win when you are playing -EV, but that doesn't mean that the two games are equivalent--far from it.
It isn't about "justification" or any other emotion--it's cold, hard mathematics. Though I must say, your exposition sounds exactly like what you call "feel-good justification"--"I lost, playing bad games, but it didn't matter anyway--it's all luck." Uh huh.
Quote: JerryLoganSo please explain how he had "the best of it". I don't care if the machine I'm playing has a -2% or +2% theoretical. The only thing that matters is how I did when I'm done. This notion that it's OK to lose because you had some sort of mythical edge over an infinite amount of hands when you're only playing a very tiny portion of that, is nothing more than feel-good justification when you lose.
I know you don't care what the edge is, but the math is no different for gambling than for investing, except it's easier. You can choose to make good bets or bad bets, and you can choose to make good investments or bad investments. Also, the long run is nowhere close to an infinite amount of hands. For 8/5 Bonus, 600k hands gets you to within +/- 1% with a 90% CI.
If I suggest flipping a coin where heads means you win my $100 and not heads means I win your $100, that's a fair game. If I suggest rolling a die where 6 means you win my $100 and not 6 means I win your $100, I have the best of it. If you don't care that I have the best of it, I'll meet you in Vegas with a pile of $100s and play that game for as long as you want. I'd be making a fabulous investment (+66.67%) and you'd be making a terrible one. Want to play? Or does your apathy toward the house edge not go quite that far?
Quote: mkl654321"Having the best of it" means having a mathematical advantage. The mathematical advantage is real, and is what makes casinos profitable. If it was as "mythical" as you keep saying, casinos wouldn't be able to keep their doors open. And yes, it is possible for a player to gain a similar mathematical advantage. As Dancer did. As MathExtremist took the trouble to explain to you.
It isn't "mythical". The casino considers it "OK to lose" because they know they will win in the long run. So does the AP.
The difference between a +EV game and a -EV game is that you are more likely to be ahead with the +EV game than with the -EV game when you are done. Certainly, you can lose when playing +EV, and win when you are playing -EV, but that doesn't mean that the two games are equivalent--far from it.
It isn't about "justification" or any other emotion--it's cold, hard mathematics. Though I must say, your exposition sounds exactly like what you call "feel-good justification"--"I lost, playing bad games, but it didn't matter anyway--it's all luck." Uh huh.
That "mathamatical advantage" definitely is real for the casinos because it is an overall small part of the whole. That has nothing to do with a player who walks in for a 2-day promotion. You're dreaming if you want it to be different. If I'm playing a +15% machine for 25,000 hands, that "+" means nothing whether I win or lose. The only thing I gained was the opportunity to do better COMPARED to another machine of lower payout, but it guarantees nothing because no long-term play ensued, which in its own right guarantees nothing.
Quote: MathExtremistI know you don't care what the edge is, but the math is no different for gambling than for investing, except it's easier. You can choose to make good bets or bad bets, and you can choose to make good investments or bad investments. Also, the long run is nowhere close to an infinite amount of hands. For 8/5 Bonus, 600k hands gets you to within +/- 1% with a 90% CI.
If I suggest flipping a coin where heads means you win my $100 and not heads means I win your $100, that's a fair game. If I suggest rolling a die where 6 means you win my $100 and not 6 means I win your $100, I have the best of it. If you don't care that I have the best of it, I'll meet you in Vegas with a pile of $100s and play that game for as long as you want. I'd be making a fabulous investment (+66.67%) and you'd be making a terrible one. Want to play? Or does your apathy toward the house edge not go quite that far?
I wonder if Jerry would consent to a little game: A bowl full of ping-pong balls numbered 1-100. If Jerry draws #1-49, he wins $100. If he draws #50-100, he loses $100. Since it doesn't matter if you have a 2% disadvantage, he should be willing to play this game, right?
Quote: MathExtremistI know you don't care what the edge is, but the math is no different for gambling than for investing, except it's easier. You can choose to make good bets or bad bets, and you can choose to make good investments or bad investments. Also, the long run is nowhere close to an infinite amount of hands. For 8/5 Bonus, 600k hands gets you to within +/- 1% with a 90% CI.
If I suggest flipping a coin where heads means you win my $100 and not heads means I win your $100, that's a fair game. If I suggest rolling a die where 6 means you win my $100 and not 6 means I win your $100, I have the best of it. If you don't care that I have the best of it, I'll meet you in Vegas with a pile of $100s and play that game for as long as you want. I'd be making a fabulous investment (+66.67%) and you'd be making a terrible one. Want to play? Or does your apathy toward the house edge not go quite that far?
If I had a dollar for every guru and math expert that's tried to explain what the long term really is, I'd have enough to put down on an offer for mkl's cheap faux BMW. There's been huge threads of arguments by these type people on vpfree over the years, and none have ever agreed. Yes, including the famous Mr. Dancer and the anal Mr. Paymar.
I don't understand your 2nd part. You guys are always minimalizing things down to a coin flip with varying rules, probably because you're all either unsure of what you're saying or you all know there's holes in it.
Quote: mkl654321I wonder if Jerry would consent to a little game: A bowl full of ping-pong balls numbered 1-100. If Jerry draws #1-49, he wins $100. If he draws #50-100, he loses $100. Since it doesn't matter if you have a 2% disadvantage, he should be willing to play this game, right?
You can tell you didn't just take a math class....
A ping-pong ball pick that after one hand identifies the theoretical advantage as being true or not when reality hits, means nothing. I'd play one of those hands with you anytime anywhere.
Quote: JerryLoganI don't understand
Jerry, in a nutshell.
The difference is that it's better to get your money in with the best of it. It's true in poker, investing and gambling.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But if you have the best of it, your end results are better than if you have the worst of it. I've shown this on VP in other threads in circumstances which are definitely not "the long term" but over the course of a few tens of hours.
Go ahead and play with the ping pong balls. It's your $100 bills. Making a bad bet and winning doesn't make the bettor a genius. It just makes the bettor better off. And if your result and cash oritentated there's NO POINT in trying to understand or pick holes in people who are expected value orientated. And vice versa.
Bob Dancer sounds like he had the best of it going in. That's all you can do, have the knowledge, the bankroll and the character to make the bets you've decided on making (Rob Singer says much the same; the difference is the series of bets he's making is way different in view to Mr Dancer's; and many argue he fails on the first on the first of the three).
Quote: JerryLoganSo please explain how he had "the best of it". I don't care if the machine I'm playing has a -2% or +2% theoretical. The only thing that matters is how I did when I'm done. This notion that it's OK to lose because you had some sort of mythical edge over an infinite amount of hands when you're only playing a very tiny portion of that, is nothing more than feel-good justification when you lose.
Jerry, look at this example and tell me what you thing in regards to the "best of it" scenario.
I have a 101-sided die. 50 sides are blue and 51 sides are red. Every time we roll the die, you pay me $10 if a red side comes up and I pay you $10 if a blue side comes up.
In this scenario I have the "best of it" with every roll. I have a small advantage that will, in the long run, win me more $10 bets than it will lose. I don't care if after 100 rolls you're ahead by $50. That's variance and it simply shows that I won't win every roll and you may even have a little run of blue rolls once in a while. The fact is that I have an advantage over you and I will play even money against you for as long as you wish as I know that I will be well ahead in the long run.
You may say that this is only math and that all you have to do is get ahead and then stop. My question to anyone who follows that theory is, what happens when you don't get ahead and you keep chasing your losses? You could also say that you'll just press the action and double up the wager when you lose so that eventually you get even. My question is, what will you do when I win 10 or more wins in a row and you run out of money and cannot double up again?
The point is that even with a small advantage, the player with the advantage will be the winner. For you or Singer or anyone to explain that away by saying that all one has to do is vary their bets until they are ahead is not only short-sighted, it's simply not possible to do. For one player to be lucky and do this is possible but to suggest that a person can design a strategy that guarantees they will always come out ahead is irrational and plain wrong.
Make sense?
Quote: JerryLoganI don't understand your 2nd part.
I'll say it again:
1) You and I each put $100 in a pot.
2) A standard die is rolled.
3) If the die is 6, you win the pot.
4) If the die is not 6, I win the pot.
I have the best of it by quite a bit. If you don't think having the best of it is important, I'll gladly sit down with you and play 100 rounds of that game. If you'll agree to that, it'd be my pleasure to pay for your hotel room and plane fare to Las Vegas. We could even make it a WoV event and invite an audience to attend.
My point with the above example is that if you don't care about having the edge, you should. If you still don't believe making smart investments is important (whether in a wager or some other financial instrument), by all means take me up on my offer. I'll even call it a "challenge" if it helps.
The fact is, people like Dancer go into a casino to play a promo after calculating out this "edge" using math that verifies it's existence over the long-term, yet they will never attain that term and therefore, are playing right into the casino's hands. Why do you think they have so many of these promotions and giveaways anyway? At the same time, because his numbers arrived at a +EV play, he had an excuse to feed his addiction and the casino knew exactly what he was going to do days before he did it. And if the Dancer-lovers come on and say he wins a bundle that we don't hear about in these promotions overall, then I'd have to say with near certainty that no one here knows how casinos operate. They would NEVER allow such a winner to walk in their doors, especially such a famous, boisterous and arrogant personality as him. However, he makes quite a good set of fees continuously writing about all the constant promotions he plays in, and most of them are at the same places.
Quote: JerryLoganAll you guys are doing is proving my point. You can't rationalize a 1.6% "edge" on a vp machine being played for a relatively small amount of hands translating into there being a true 1.6% edge that was calculated in theory assuming long-term play, so you reach for straws by comparing it to other scenarios utilizing far less opportunities. At the end of the day you're caught between idolizing AP play and how it's calculated to be that way, and struggling hard to come up with explanations on how it can be true knowing the math doesn't support it to be true over a fraction of the number of hands that went into the original calculation.
The fact is, people like Dancer go into a casino to play a promo after calculating out this "edge" using math that verifies it's existence over the long-term, yet they will never attain that term and therefore, are playing right into the casino's hands. Why do you think they have so many of these promotions and giveaways anyway? At the same time, because his numbers arrived at a +EV play, he had an excuse to feed his addiction and the casino knew exactly what he was going to do days before he did it. And if the Dancer-lovers come on and say he wins a bundle that we don't hear about in these promotions overall, then I'd have to say with near certainty that no one here knows how casinos operate. They would NEVER allow such a winner to walk in their doors, especially such a famous, boisterous and arrogant personality as him. However, he makes quite a good set of fees continuously writing about all the constant promotions he plays in, and most of them are at the same places.
You don't get it, do you? By "allowing" him to play, they increased the total amount they would collect over the course of the promotion. I'll explain it gently to you:
Scenario A: They forbid Dancer to play. They give the car away to somebody.
Scenario B: They allow Dancer to play. They win a certain amount from him because he is playing 8/5 Bonus. They give the car away to somebody (not necessarily Dancer, though they shouldn't care one way or the other).
Can you understand that the casino makes more money in Scenario B than in Scenario A?
I've amazed that you think that a long-term mathematical advantage is some kind of illusion--yet, you spend lots of time in casinos that were built by nothing more and nothing less than that same long-term edge.
Really, Singer, you're starting to sound kind of silly.
Quote: MathExtremistIf you'll agree to that, it'd be my pleasure to pay for your hotel room and plane fare to Las Vegas. We could even make it a WoV event and invite an audience to attend.
I would like to attend! That would be a great event!
Quote: gamblerI would like to attend! That would be a great event!
It can't happen, because there is no "JerryLogan"--only Rob Singer, the fraud, hiding behind an internet screen name.
Quote: mkl654321It can't happen, because there is no "JerryLogan"--only Rob Singer, the fraud, hiding behind an internet screen name.
I don't care who he is in real life. The point is that Jerry (whoever is typing under that handle) thinks the edge is meaningless, especially over a short session, and I've designed a bet to demonstrate otherwise. 100 plays is about as short as it gets, less than an hour. What do you say, Jerry - is it a bet?
If not, why not?
Quote: MathExtremistI don't care who he is in real life. The point is that Jerry (whoever is typing under that handle) thinks the edge is meaningless, especially over a short session, and I've designed a bet to demonstrate otherwise. 100 plays is about as short as it gets, less than an hour. What do you say, Jerry - is it a bet?
If not, why not?
It's just about time for Jerry to say something nasty about your job, your car, your age, or where you live. Also, something about how all this math stuff is theoretical, which he thinks means "not real". 5..4..3..2..1..
No wonder everybody hates Rob Singer....
Quote: gamblerI would like to attend! That would be a great event!
I'd like to sell tickets for that :)
Quote: mkl654321You don't get it, do you? By "allowing" him to play, they increased the total amount they would collect over the course of the promotion. I'll explain it gently to you:
Scenario A: They forbid Dancer to play. They give the car away to somebody.
Scenario B: They allow Dancer to play. They win a certain amount from him because he is playing 8/5 Bonus. They give the car away to somebody (not necessarily Dancer, though they shouldn't care one way or the other).
Can you understand that the casino makes more money in Scenario B than in Scenario A?
I've amazed that you think that a long-term mathematical advantage is some kind of illusion--yet, you spend lots of time in casinos that were built by nothing more and nothing less than that same long-term edge.
Really, Singer, you're starting to sound kind of silly.
Duh! Of course they make more money by letting Dancer or anyone else play, because the majority of these people LOSE the more they play! Are you for real? And whether it's 8/5 or 15/5 BP, there's a much better chance the casino is going to win either way. Maybe you ought to actually become a vp player instead of fantacizing about what you think AP play really is.
Quote: gamblerI would like to attend! That would be a great event!
These are the same guys who weaseled out of meeting and just TALKING with my friend RS, likely because they just might end up like Jennings and the other guy. So what makes you think any of them would actually have the fortitude to do it WITH ME now?
Quote: JerryLoganThese are the same guys who weaseled out of meeting and just TALKING with my friend RS, likely because they just might end up like Jennings and the other guy. So what makes you think any of them would actually have the fortitude to do it WITH ME now?
Yes, Jerryhole, they would. I think anyone would hold their nose and go through the nauseating experience of actually meeting you if they could take your money. I know I would (it would have to be a LOT of money, so bring all that swag you said you won).
Quote: JerryLoganDuh! Of course they make more money by letting Dancer or anyone else play, because the majority of these people LOSE the more they play!
I was answering your "assertion" (oooooooooo!!) that the casino wouldn't let Dancer play such a promotion:
Jerryquote: If Dancer were so feared in that he wins more of these promos than he loses and wins money hand over foot, there'd be no way they'd allow him in on the action.
You're starting to trip over your own tongue, Jerryhole....
One players positive EV, doesn't mean the casino lost money. They may have brought in 100 different people that would never have played there. If the combined house edge exceeds the cost of doing the promotion, it was a net win for the casino.
The one issue I could see is if similar promotions go on and it is always won by 1-3 people, then the draw to get people in may not succeed. This is simply based on getting people to believe they can win, and has nothing to do with allowing a person that has a +EV to play.
Quote: mkl654321I was answering your "assertion" (oooooooooo!!) that the casino wouldn't let Dancer play such a promotion:
Jerryquote: If Dancer were so feared in that he wins more of these promos than he loses and wins money hand over foot, there'd be no way they'd allow him in on the action.
You're starting to trip over your own tongue, Jerryhole....
Duh! Of course they make more money by letting Dancer or anyone else play, because the majority of these people LOSE the more they play!
Try again.
Quote: soulhunt79He is calculating the edge for long term play. Why are you restricting it to just this one tournament? Play in 1 tournament and the variance may not be in your favor. Play in 50 and that variance starts to go down.
One players positive EV, doesn't mean the casino lost money. They may have brought in 100 different people that would never have played there. If the combined house edge exceeds the cost of doing the promotion, it was a net win for the casino.
The one issue I could see is if similar promotions go on and it is always won by 1-3 people, then the draw to get people in may not succeed. This is simply based on getting people to believe they can win, and has nothing to do with allowing a person that has a +EV to play.
Bingo! Of course he is calculating the "edge" for long term play, which is where he makes his grave error. What he is not doing is factoring all his other casino visits/tournaments into this calculation, so it stands alone in it's "validity". In fact, each time he goes into play it is a stand alone affair. If one hand is unaffected by any that have come before or any that have yet to come, then one visit is unaffected by any that have come before or any that have yet to come. This, I learned in my training.
As far as casinos losing money, it obviously doesn't ever happen with these tournaments. They rope in as many players as they can get, and they know in advance the usual crowd of AP's who are going to show up. It is no mystery and they are always 2 steps ahead of the players. If it were any other way then there most certainly would be no more tournaments.
Quote: JerryLoganDuh! Of course they make more money by letting Dancer or anyone else play, because the majority of these people LOSE the more they play!
Try again.
Singer, see if it you want to. Ignore it if you want to. Who gives a crap? You won't sell any more books either way.
Quote: clarkacalI think some people just enjoy creating chaos, like the Joker in "the Dark Knight" and Jerry Logan, so to try and find a way to discuss or reason is a waste. As Itscalledsoccer said before about someone, I find it hard many of his statements are anything but intentional obfuscations. But it's entertaining!
Then I take it you're not one of the few who hasn't asked for mkl to disappear while I was away!
Quote: JerryLoganThen I take it you're not one of the few who hasn't asked for mkl to disappear while I was away!
You do realize you just said you take it I asked for mkl to disappear? Talk about intentional obfuscations!
Anyway, I've had it out with mkl before but he doesn't get to me and we can have meaningful dialogues. You don't get to me either, it's just that you have to understand that so many people on here including me gamble with the assumption 2+2=4. Then you come in and say "no 2+2 does not = 4" and it's impossible to discuss things further when people are speaking different languages.
By the way your sentence that I quoted gave me a headache.
Quote: clarkacalYou do realize you just said you take it I asked for mkl to disappear? Talk about intentional obfuscations!
Anyway, I've had it out with mkl before but he doesn't get to me and we can have meaningful dialogues. You don't get to me either, it's just that you have to understand that so many people on here including me gamble with the assumption 2+2=4. Then you come in and say "no 2+2 does not = 4" and it's impossible to discuss things further when people are speaking different languages.
By the way your sentence that I quoted gave me a headache.
You guys are always reducing your positions down to the simplest of terms because there seems to be an inate ability here to argue my points to the point of being rattled and lost.
I don't get headaches so I don't really understand.
Quote: JerryLoganYou guys are always reducing your positions down to the simplest of terms because there seems to be an inate ability here to argue my points to the point of being rattled and lost.
I don't get headaches so I don't really understand.
No it's actually because if we get technical, you can't follow the point very well and get lost.
Seriously. Toy examples are very good to examine how the world works, and then to follow where the model differs from the real world and see if it matters. Clearly, you don't believe predictions can be made prior to an event based on the knowledge you have at that point. Which is odd seeing as you bet on football and have posted "locks" and sure things.
The example you give works fine... if Dancer thinks he will gurantee winning the 40k car, and he values it at 40k, then simply he plays through the amount, and adds 40k to his end result. The predict prior to the bet will be X with a variance of Y.
Short or long term doesn't matter. You can always predict what will happen if you really care too. I can predict the actual chances of what will happen with a mere two spins of the VP machine, giving you chances of each possible dollar result.
That's all that happens. Same way as you'll predict the total fuel used by a Trucking company in the month of April. Except I hope the variance is less in trucking.
Quote: JerryLoganThen I take it you're not one of the few who hasn't asked for mkl to disappear while I was away!
Jerry thinks that 99.5% of the forum is "the few". He can't count OR think. He's as stupid as he is abrasive.
That would mean Joe Biden would have to start posting here.
Quote: thecesspitNo it's actually because if we get technical, you can't follow the point very well and get lost.
Seriously. Toy examples are very good to examine how the world works, and then to follow where the model differs from the real world and see if it matters. Clearly, you don't believe predictions can be made prior to an event based on the knowledge you have at that point. Which is odd seeing as you bet on football and have posted "locks" and sure things.
The example you give works fine... if Dancer thinks he will gurantee winning the 40k car, and he values it at 40k, then simply he plays through the amount, and adds 40k to his end result. The predict prior to the bet will be X with a variance of Y.
Short or long term doesn't matter. You can always predict what will happen if you really care too. I can predict the actual chances of what will happen with a mere two spins of the VP machine, giving you chances of each possible dollar result.
That's all that happens. Same way as you'll predict the total fuel used by a Trucking company in the month of April. Except I hope the variance is less in trucking.
I have no problem admitting that technical is not my bag. I'm much more practical and prefer to focus on reality over theory.
Yes I do believe predictions can be made based on the best possible info available. What I don't believe in is claiming a particular advantage exists that was arrived at via calculations that only apply over the long term, and then turning it around by saying that edge is also good for just today just so it fits the bill. Video poker players are more than famous for making up all kinds of reasons to play whenever they have the cash to spare, because it is the most addictive game in the casinos. In sportsbetting that exactly how it's done: short term expectation based on previous results.
Quote: JerryLoganThese are the same guys who weaseled out of meeting and just TALKING with my friend RS, likely because they just might end up like Jennings and the other guy. So what makes you think any of them would actually have the fortitude to do it WITH ME now?
Fortitude, huh?
This isn't about RS, this is about you and your vehement assertion that the house edge doesn't matter unless it's over the long run. 100 rolls of a die is not the long run, so let me reiterate my offer. I will buy your plane ticket and hotel room if you'll agree to meet me in Vegas and play 100 hands of the 6/not-6 dice game as I previously described. I'll even up the ante and put you up in the Wynn for a night.
That's the offer, and if you're right that the house edge doesn't matter over 100 rolls, it's a pretty good one. The Wynn is pretty nice. How's that fortitude holding up, Jerry?
Quote: MathExtremistFortitude, huh?
This isn't about RS, this is about you and your vehement assertion that the house edge doesn't matter unless it's over the long run. 100 rolls of a die is not the long run, so let me reiterate my offer. I will buy your plane ticket and hotel room if you'll agree to meet me in Vegas and play 100 hands of the 6/not-6 dice game as I previously described. I'll even up the ante and put you up in the Wynn for a night.
That's the offer, and if you're right that the house edge doesn't matter over 100 rolls, it's a pretty good one. The Wynn is pretty nice. How's that fortitude holding up, Jerry?
Well with him that's exactly the way it is, and past threads prove it.
Your dice offer is foolish and you know why. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous edge creations by AP's on particular vp machines for a handful of hours of play just so they can feel good about sitting down to play. Edge %'s are calculated over the long haul because that's what it takes for them to materialize in vp. Play the thing for 24 hours and you're simply hoping for a bunch of luck just like any tourist would.
Quote: JerryLoganI have no problem admitting that technical is not my bag. I'm much more practical and prefer to focus on reality over theory.
Yes I do believe predictions can be made based on the best possible info available. What I don't believe in is claiming a particular advantage exists that was arrived at via calculations that only apply over the long term, and then turning it around by saying that edge is also good for just today just so it fits the bill. Video poker players are more than famous for making up all kinds of reasons to play whenever they have the cash to spare, because it is the most addictive game in the casinos. In sportsbetting that exactly how it's done: short term expectation based on previous results.
The advantage exists whether you play for 1 hand or 10 billion. The difference is that the variance is much larger than the expected value. However, you don't need 10 billion hands for results to converge. It happens faster than you may realise. Dancer IS correct to claim an advantage in this situation, whether or not he actually ends up in front.
But this is a tired argument I've had with you, Mr Singer and other's many a time. I ran the numbers to prove my position is correct in the mid-term (100 hours of play), so lets leave it there. With just one question, when does the short term "sit down and play as a tourist" end?
Your explanation of variance and expectation converging is not how Dancer explained why he made the play. He said he would only play as many hands as it took to be the winner, which totally threw his supposed advantage right out the window if you believe it was really there in the first place.
Dancer is again correct. Once he "wins" his $40k car, then there is no advantage of playing any more, as he doesn't get any extra for playing.
Say a casino offered you $2,000 if you played 1000 hands of VP at the dollar level. You have an advantage for those 1,000 hands, but as 1001 doesn't give you anything extra so you stop after 1,000 hands. You'll play them, see where you end up, and then add 2 grand to the total. Even in your view of the VP world, that makes sense. Even if you Singerize it, and quit ahead after 700 hands and hitting a your daily win limit, you'd be on a good deal, because you know if you hit 1,000 hands are $1,000 in the hole you'll STILL be able to walk out a winner.
(I've exagarrated the example for effect, but it's still there). 1% advantage is just 1 tenth of a 10% advantage; Again there's no magical point where the advantage is "large enough" that it appears suddenly.
Course, if you took 6 grand, used Singer's methods but ran bad and were playing $25 VP and lost it all on hand 900, then you'd be six grand in the hole, but them's the breaks. With Rob's view, you never know whats going to happen next, right?
I'm not real sure about where RS got the $6 grand figure, but it's got something to do with being able to play out 3 sessions. Somewhere along the way a big winner will appear, and it most likely will be on the $5 game because that denom. has the most number of credits. But the entire bankroll wouldn't be lost by hand 900 if I understand you right.
Your chance to die from a single dose of heroin is less than 0.1%. Your chance to become addicted is only 23%.
If you keep taking heroin, your long-term expectation is to die in pain in slums or in prison. Over the short term of one or two shots, however, you will most likely walk away clean.
Does that mean you should shoot black, rather than sticking to candy cane like a white man?
