Playing advantage in ac, lost, playing Singer method $10000 + lost.
AC machines are not like Vegas's. Th incorporate secondary results.
Played in Vegas - expected results
Lesson- I will NOT play VP on C, even though its 2 hour drive vs. 4
hour plane ride.
ac vp
Sounds like you need a private lesson. See if Dancer will train you for
free (if he can get time off his 3 jobs that is) and when you're
declined let me know. I'll teach you how to win and respect yourself in
the casinos where AP's have no respect at all. Or maybe you'll get
lucky and get an offer from little dicky to help you out. All you need
do is be prepared to spend the better part of your life as a degenerate
going to locals dumps. If you have a spouse you'd like to abuse, like
he & Bob, feel free to bring him/her along. The family that
pathologically gamblers together suffers together!
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "teacuplily" <teacuplily@...> wrote:
Playing advantage in ac, lost, playing Singer method $10000 + lost.
AC machines are not like Vegas's. Th incorporate secondary results.
Played in Vegas - expected results
Lesson- I will NOT play VP on C, even though its 2 hour drive vs. 4
hour plane ride.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "teacuplily" <teacuplily@...>
wrote:
Playing advantage in ac, lost, playing Singer method $10000 + lost.
AC machines are not like Vegas's. Th incorporate secondary results.
Played in Vegas - expected results
Lesson- I will NOT play VP on C, even though its 2 hour drive vs. 4
hour plane ride.
One thing to remember is that there is no such thing as "expected
results" in any short term VP play. I believe that gambling in AC is
just as ligit as it is in LV.
I'm glad you posted your results using the Singer method. Although
you should normally see more session wins than losses, this kind of
loss will occur 20-25% of the time and deplete most of your smaller
session wins on positive machines. There is NO advantage playing a
progression. You'd never know anyone could lose listening to Robbie.
If you ignore everything Singer has to say you will doing yourself a
big favor.
Dick
One thing to remember is that there is no such thing as "expected
results" in any short term VP play. I believe that gambling in AC
is just as ligit as it is in LV.
What a bunch of feel-good BS on both counts. I only play short-term
sessions, and I expect to win every time I bother to make the trip
to addict-land. BTW--half the fun is winning, the other half is
watching the degenerate locals pound away endlessly on what they
believe are 'positive' machines, in their K-mart clothing, sitting
in chairs that only serve to widen their girth. And gambling in AC
has no merit. It's no more secure than any Indian casino or on-line
rip off site--and they are all operating biased vp machines.
Otherwise you'd see me going there to play for profit at least 4
times a year on the free flights Harrah's offers.
I'm glad you posted your results using the Singer method. Although
you should normally see more session wins than losses, this kind
of loss will occur 20-25% of the time and deplete most of your
smaller session wins on positive machines. There is NO advantage
playing a progression. You'd never know anyone could lose listening
to Robbie.
That's a totally blind statement especially coming from a geek who
says he demands fact. How do you know exactly how he/she played,
what discipline they possess, what bankroll they used, and if
they've mastered the special plays or not? Remember little dicky,
unless someone follows my exact strategy to the letter, I do not
tell anyone they will win. If they choose to utilize some variation,
onlt after a question & answer meet with me do they have a better
overall opportunity for more consistent & overall winning along with
far more enjoyment each time they play a session.
If you ignore everything Singer has to say you will doing yourself
a big favor.
He's referring to the part where Dancer would charge you to train
you, how he must fit it in between his 3 jobs, and how he & little
dicky have compulsive playing wives who were molded into that
pathetic state by none other than their generously thoughtful and
respected men-of-the-year 'advantage-playing' hubbies.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
I would suggest you are experiencing a short term losing streak.
Last week, I visited Atlantic City for the first time in several years.
In 20-25 hours of single line $0.25 video poker play, I had three royal
flushes, including my first ever dealt royal.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "teacuplily" <teacuplily@...> wrote:
Playing advantage in ac, lost, playing Singer method $10000 + lost.
AC machines are not like Vegas's. Th incorporate secondary results.
Played in Vegas - expected results
Lesson- I will NOT play VP on C, even though its 2 hour drive vs. 4
hour plane ride.
You seem to have fared a bit better than the unlucky, dumb, problem
gambler who recently wrote on another vp forum how she hit four Aces
with the kicker on dollar DDB twice the first night of her visit,
though for a moment how I teach to just leave at that point up
thousands, then thought of how Bob Dancer preaches to play on and on
and on for the greatest opportunity, then thought of how Jean Scott
says to play on and on for the points and all the freebies you can
handle--and guess what happened? She listened to the 'gurus' of course--
which seemed more of a glove-like fit for her compulsive gambling--and
went home $500 in the hole!! What do I say? HAHAHAHA! What a LOSER!!!!!
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@...> wrote:
I would suggest you are experiencing a short term losing streak.
Last week, I visited Atlantic City for the first time in several
years.In 20-25 hours of single line $0.25 video poker play, I had
three royal flushes, including my first ever dealt royal.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:
You seem to have fared a bit better than the unlucky, dumb, problem
gambler who recently wrote on another vp forum how she hit four
Aces
with the kicker on dollar DDB twice the first night of her visit,
though for a moment how I teach to just leave at that point up
thousands, then thought of how Bob Dancer preaches to play on and
on
and on for the greatest opportunity, then thought of how Jean Scott
says to play on and on for the points and all the freebies you can
handle--and guess what happened? She listened to the 'gurus' of
course--
which seemed more of a glove-like fit for her compulsive gambling--
and
went home $500 in the hole!! What do I say? HAHAHAHA! What a
LOSER!!!!!
I'm not quite sure what your point is here, or how it relates to my
previous post. What I am sure of is that if I'd quit playing after
the first royal, I wouldn't have gotten the second one, and if I'd
quit after the second, I wouldn't have enjoyed the third.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@...> wrote:
I'm not quite sure what your point is here, or how it relates to my
previous post. What I am sure of is that if I'd quit playing after
the first royal, I wouldn't have gotten the second one, and if I'd
quit after the second, I wouldn't have enjoyed the third.
I'll be glad to explain. Sure you had extraordinary luck hitting those
royals. Anyone would be glad to gloat about such an accomplishment.
However, if you continue to play on and on that way in the future,
because hitting more than one royal is overwhelmingly not going to
happen, you're going to end up just as that lady did more often than
not. Certainly the 'gurus' are going to encourage you to play on
without regard to money won, but that's how they sell their scams. I
too used to follow that path until I had enough of the losing--even
when I'd hit a royal in the first 2 hands played on a trip. But because
I woke up one day, I now enjoy what is probably the best record ever
attained in the history of video poker playing by anyone.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:
I'll be glad to explain. Sure you had extraordinary luck hitting
those
royals. Anyone would be glad to gloat about such an accomplishment.
However, if you continue to play on and on that way in the future,
because hitting more than one royal is overwhelmingly not going to
happen, you're going to end up just as that lady did more often
than
not.
So, what are you saying? I should have stopped playing after getting
one royal? If so, for how long? An hour? A week? Forever?
Sure, getting a group of royals in a short period of time is unusual,
but, since, as you have always pointed out, each hand is an
independent event. The fact that there have been one, two, three, or
more royals in the recent past has nothing to do with when the next
one will occur.
And, as a matter of fact, I hit another one this past week at Casino
Rama. That makes my total four in eight days. If I quit now, I will
never know if a fifth, sixth, etc., awaits me on my next play.
So, what are you saying? I should have stopped playing after getting
one royal? If so, for how long? An hour? A week? Forever?
That all depends upon you and your own particular circumstances. I have
to assume you play the same denomination only. If you play regularly
and have an addiction to the game then by all means, stop right now for
good--unless and until you ever would want to learn any of my much more
enjoyable, far less controlling play strategies where you play where,
when and why and how YOU want to and not because there's some tempting
sucker promotion waiting at the end of some 'advantage player'rainbow -
or because you have the time and simply have 'nothing else to do'.
Sure, getting a group of royals in a short period of time is unusual,
but, since, as you have always pointed out, each hand is an
independent event. The fact that there have been one, two, three, or
more royals in the recent past has nothing to do with when the next
one will occur.
I completely agree.
And, as a matter of fact, I hit another one this past week at Casino
Rama. That makes my total four in eight days. If I quit now, I will
never know if a fifth, sixth, etc., awaits me on my next play.
It's not so much an important issue of your quitting now as it is in
what you want out of the game. You might have the cash laying around
for a good time and to you that good time means playing vp--although
there's a big question of whether sitting at machines for hours on end
and days at a time has anything to do with having a good time at all.
If you're chasing more royals, I can tell you now that you'll probably
put all you've won back in thinking they're just gonna come out like
they've been doing for you. Overwhelmingly, that will not happen. And
that's exactly why I teach to set win & loss goals and do exactly what
you said you were going to do BEFORE walking into any casino. In your
case, since I teach strict adherence to leaving immediately after
hitting any royals, you'd only have 2 instead of 4 in the last 8 days.
I don't know about you, but to me that would be thousands, and it would
have allowed me to attain my win goal two sessions in a row--which
means I'd be gone until the next session were to be played. and since
machines are always in a different state of cycles, you never know
what's coming up anyway.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@...> wrote:
That all depends upon you and your own particular circumstances. I
have
to assume you play the same denomination only.
Your assumption is wrong. The first three royals I mentioned were
$1000, while the fourth was $2000.
If you're chasing more royals...
I don't "chase" royals, I play video poker. Hitting royals is a natural
consequence of that.
..... and since machines are always in a different state of cycles,
you never know what's coming up anyway.
I think using the term cycle to describe what happens in video poker is
incorrect. A cycle is something that occurs over and over, repeating
itself. There is an implication of predictability. Anyone who thinks
they can predict the outcome of a video poker hand, or series of hands,
is mistaken.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...> wrote:
Your assumption is wrong. The first three royals I mentioned were
$1000, while the fourth was $2000.
That's good to finally know. The only info I had thus far was:"In 20-
25 hours of single line $0.25 video poker play, I had three royal
flushes, including my first ever dealt royal" & "And, as a matter of
fact, I hit another one this past week at Casino Rama. That makes my
total four in eight days". Additionally, that 4th royal could have
been on a quarter progressive.
With this additional information, you might also like to learn that
anyone who goes up in denomination after winning either is or is on
the path to problem gambling. Best to nip it in the bud right now--
which is what I teach everyone who's serious about doing the right
things in video poker.
> If you're chasing more royals...
I don't "chase" royals, I play video poker. Hitting royals is a
natural consequence of that.
Absolutely. But the excitement of your statements of so many royals
in a short period of time radiated a perceived expectation that that
will continue.
..... and since machines are always in a different state of cycles,
you never know what's coming up anyway.
I think using the term cycle to describe what happens in video
poker is incorrect. A cycle is something that occurs over and over,
repeating itself. There is an implication of predictability.
Not so in the context of my statement. These 'cycles' (more cold and
few hot) are programmed to occur as required and are not predictable
at all.
Anyone who thinks they can predict the outcome of a video poker
hand, or series of hands, is mistaken.
Partially correct. One of the reasons I'm so successful with my
different play strategies is because I'm able more than others
to 'spot' a trend, and since my strategies are in a continuous state
of multiple denominations and games, I'm more likely than others who
stay on machines for the purpose of 'teaching them a lesson' to find
a hot cycle.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:
With this additional information, you might also like to learn
that
anyone who goes up in denomination after winning either is or is on
the path to problem gambling. Best to nip it in the bud right now--
which is what I teach everyone who's serious about doing the right
things in video poker.
I didn't change denomination because I had won. I changed because at
Casino Rama, one has to play at the equivalent of $.50 to enjoy a
reasonable pay scale.
Absolutely. But the excitement of your statements of so many royals
in a short period of time radiated a perceived expectation that
that
will continue.
I wasn't aware that I was radiating that expectation. In fact, as we
both should know, it is quite unlikely to happen.
One of the reasons I'm so successful with my
different play strategies is because I'm able more than others
to 'spot' a trend, and since my strategies are in a continuous
state
of multiple denominations and games, I'm more likely than others
who
stay on machines for the purpose of 'teaching them a lesson' to
find
a hot cycle.
I don't know how you can "spot a trend". And even if it appeared
there was a pattern in recently played hands - so what? What's past
is past, and as you've said, future hands are independent events,
unrelated to what's preceded them.
I didn't change denomination because I had won. I changed because
at Casino Rama, one has to play at the equivalent of $.50 to enjoy a
reasonable pay scale.
Unless a person plays one of my play strategies or a variation
thereof, any rationale for going up in denomination after a jackpot
or two makes little sense. What was the reason for playing 50c again--
-for a better pay scale? Are you saying the 50c machines had
different payouts than your normal level - quarters - for FH's &
Flushes, etc.? If not, it had to be due to the royal, but below I
read that you don't play for them. The lesson here is not to expect
what happened to Bob Dancer a few years ago will happen to you or
anyone else. Taking those 'shots' at higher denominations you don't
have the proper bankroll for when feeling cocky after hitting a
jackpot at lower denominations never lasts---as he's discovered too
many times since.
I wasn't aware that I was radiating that expectation. In fact, as
we both should know, it is quite unlikely to happen.
Understood.
I don't know how you can "spot a trend". And even if it appeared
there was a pattern in recently played hands - so what? What's
past is past, and as you've said, future hands are independent
events, unrelated to what's preceded them.
It is not very difficult for me at all to spot cycle trends in vp
machines. I'm not sure you've been following one of little dicky's
arguments with me on this, but you can always go to my site and watch
my video on said subject. And, we all agree future hands are
independent of and unrelated to what's already occured. That
statement, however, contains the wording used by the Nv. gaming
regulations that does not corrupt the meaning of being random when
the randomness is being defined by cycles.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:
Unless a person plays one of my play strategies or a variation
thereof, any rationale for going up in denomination after a jackpot
or two makes little sense. What was the reason for playing 50c
again--
The bulk of my video poker is played at Casino Rama. I wasn't really
going up in denomination, I was merely returning to what I usually
play. My previous postings do not make that obvious, and for that I
apologize.
I play at that level, because playing for any less significantly
shorts the royal flush payout, from 800 for one, to 250 for 1.
Royals don't happen that often, but they do constitute a significant
component of the game's potential return. To ignore that fact, and
accept a lower payout is not, in my opinion, very intelligent
gambling. I wonder how many people would willingly play a game like
double double bonus if the payout for four aces plus kicker was, say
800, instead of 2000.
And, we all agree future hands are
independent of and unrelated to what's already occured. That
statement, however, contains the wording used by the Nv. gaming
regulations that does not corrupt the meaning of being random when
the randomness is being defined by cycles.
I have to confess that I've read and reread the above several times,
and still have no idea what you are saying. To me, random is random,
and, by definition, cannot be cyclic.
The situation is that the machines are NOT actually random, they are
pseudo-random. This means the machines are cycling through possible
hands at very fast rates. Think about actually shuffling a deck of
cards. After each shuffle the cards represent a possible result. Each
shuffle is dependent upon the actual locations of the cards before that
shuffle. Hence it is also not completely random. The machine is doing
the equivalent function all the time until deal/draw is pressed. At
that time it would be like you stopping shuffling and dealing out the
cards. Interestingly, you would be a little more random than the
machine since your shuffle would not be exactly the same algorithm
every time (Yes, there are degrees of randomness).
Although I'm not completely familiar with the processors used in
todays' VP machines I suspect the RNG cycles much faster than once
every millisecond. I suspect they may be 10-100 times faster. Given
this speed a hand that would appear every 8 seconds on an older machine
now is available every .08 seconds. So, I suspect any hot or cold
cycles would be over with so fast that they would be ignorable.
Note also that to be legit whatever hot and cold cycles that did exist
have to be equal in length and duration over a reasonable period of
time. Otherwise a strategy could be devised to improve your results by
playing differently when a machine was hot vs. when it was cold.
Dick
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@...> wrote:
I have to confess that I've read and reread the above several times,
and still have no idea what you are saying. To me, random is random,
and, by definition, cannot be cyclic.
I play at that level, because playing for any less significantly
shorts the royal flush payout, from 800 for one, to 250 for 1.
Yes, but that's the same issue I have with those who are roped in to
play a "double-royals on the 2nd one in 24 hrs." type sucker promotion.
It only matters if you hit it, and today is the only session that you
really care anything about. Yesterday's is over with, and tomorrow's
may never come.
> And, we all agree future hands are
> independent of and unrelated to what's already occured. That
> statement, however, contains the wording used by the Nv. gaming
> regulations that does not corrupt the meaning of being random when
> the randomness is being defined by cycles.
I have to confess that I've read and reread the above several times,
and still have no idea what you are saying. To me, random is random,
and, by definition, cannot be cyclic.
Read "The Art of Intrusion" piece submitted by Psychophysical
yesterday. that will help.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "neilemb" <nembree@...> wrote: