Dick,
Will you be making this progressive system computer program available
to the VP community?
Dick's new program
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jasimonetta"
<simonetta.jonathan@d...> wrote:
Dick,
Will you be making this progressive system computer program available
to the VP community?
Right now it's pretty simple. However, I can see making it available
eventually. Just what would you like to use it for?
Dick
Dick -
The blackjack ap sites include posters who have doctorates in math,
expert computer programmers, intelligent theoreticians, successful
high stakes players, etc., mixed in with the usual array of posters.
These sites have already had MANY extensive discussions on
progressive betting systems.
They have also had people run extensive sims which have been posted.
All of the results have (of course) shown empirically that no
betting system can turn a negative ev bet into a positive ev bet.
(Obviously, I would hope).
I may have just posted info that you are already aware of, and you
may have other reasons for spending time on this project.
But if you were not aware of the above, I'd be glad to steer you to
these sites, and you can save yourself a lot of time and effort not
duplicating work which has already been covered quite thoroughly.
On a related topic - It's obvious that Singer has no strategy (other
than "Bet more when you're behind" and "Drive home to Arizona once
you're ahead").
His constant doubletalk doesn't hide this fact.
As stated above, no betting system can turn a negative event into a
positive.
His "Drive home when you're ahead, then return" is actually helpful -
in a foolish way - to people who play without an edge, as anything
to keep people from making losing wagers will of course minimize
their loss.
The ideal strategy in this sense would be "Drive home as soon as you
are ahead any amount beginning with one cent, AND NEVER ENTER A
CASINO AGAIN".
That will give them a much greater expectation (in the sense that
they'll lose less) than Rob's progressions, which are useless.
The typical input from someone who has little understanding of what
another's success is based upon, and who wants to have it be that RS
just does not win. I'm wondering....just how much would it hurt you to
come to the realization that I really do profit significantly by my
play strategy? That's GOT to be why critics have never accepted a bet
on my documented winning over nearly 9 years. I've never seen anyone
else publicly offer such proof--or even anything remotely close--yet
math people want to blindly believe anyone who says they play expert-
strategy or "advantage play" and that they win year in and year out.
What is it---a comfort factor or something??
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jw776655" <jw776655@y...> wrote:
On a related topic - It's obvious that Singer has no strategy (other
than "Bet more when you're behind" and "Drive home to Arizona once
you're ahead").
His constant doubletalk doesn't hide this fact.
jw776655 wrote:
On a related topic - It's obvious that Singer has no strategy (other
than "Bet more when you're behind" and "Drive home to Arizona once
you're ahead").
His constant doubletalk doesn't hide this fact.As stated above, no betting system can turn a negative event into a
positive.
The Singer methodology isn't appropriate for those who want to
long-haul it in the casino. Over a large number of sessions (but
hardly the ubiquitously cited "long-term") play quickly approaches ER.
And, as you suggest, Singer's play guidance doesn't alter that.
But grinding out play isn't everyone's dream, nor is being a slave to
positive ER. Some want to play rather casually on their own terms.
Singer offers a feasible means by which they can approach play with a
decent shot at coming out a winner.
That system isn't for the faint hearted. It requires a sizable
bankroll -- something that, at the core, Singer makes no bones about.
Further, it carries a ROR that takes a strong stomach. These two
factors make it viable for a select few and not the masses -- but it
is viable.
The basis is simple ... in the relatively short run, game volatility
can be expected to often advance a player to a positive position at
some point in time. The more you ramp up volatility, via higher
variance games and advancement to higher denomination play, the more
you increase the probability of achieving a profit position in play.
Mind you, there's a sizable downside of substantial loss on the other
end of that volatility. Thus the high bankroll requirement.
There's nothing unsound in this in principal and that's something that
bears recognition. At the same time, the realities are such that the
system will only appeal to a select number of players who crave that
excitement, are prepared to accept the sizable dollar risk, and are
willing to walk from play for good when a reasonable profit goal it
achieved (one best defined in terms of the loss their willing to bear).
Personally I'm not familiar with anyone who meets this profile. But I
have no doubt that they exist and certainly Singer is among them. The
constraints of "advantage play" hold little interest to them.
Singer's method is going to attract those players who find "advantage
play" doesn't suit their play desires. The perverse thing is that
most are unfit candidates for sound Singer play and its risks but
don't recognize it. Singer encourages such players to modify his
system without any real defined constraints. This is leading them
down the garden path.
But, to be frank, these players largely will run astray of common
sense even if left to their own devices. I can't foul Singer much for
any real crime here.
I don't fault Singer in promoting his strategy. And, at heart, I find
him a reasoned soul. I have a distaste, though, for the aggressive
and contentious diatribe that he introduces into discussions at times
when challenged by someone who shows disrespect for him. And the
intense, often personally focussed, criticism he lobs at the "experts"
is entirely unsavory.
Have I proved myself a fence-sitter again, or just someone who rarely
sees things in black-and-white?
- Harry
The best shot someone has who wants to gamble on a negative ev game is
to not play.
If they insist on playing or they want to make a profit, the best shot
is to bet their entire gambling bankroll on the bet with the lowest
house edge, then they either lose all their money or they double up
and then quit.
Such as putting it all on one single deck bj spot, and reading basic
strategy from a cue card.
If reading the cue card is too taxing, then put it all on Don't Pass
at craps or something with an equally low house edge.
As I mentioned already, progressions have been thoroughly diagnosed,
simmed, discussed, ad nauseum on several websites by knowledgeable
people.
I'd recommend that anyone who wants to see more discussion of this
topic go to one of those sites and read up on this.
The best shot someone has who wants to gamble on a negative ev game
is to not play.
I believe you need to grab a copy of tomorrow morning's Gaming Today
and get a video poker education on that. They go fast, so go early.
If they insist on playing or they want to make a profit, the best
shot is to bet their entire gambling bankroll on the bet with the
lowest house edge, then they either lose all their money or they
double up and then quit.Such as putting it all on one single deck bj
spot, and reading basic strategy from a cue card.
Now I understand why you are so turned off by the use of any
progression, and why you actually ignore every other aspect of my
strategy. You're confused as to what video poker is, and like many
others, you believe I play a Martingale even though I can withstand 30
or more straight losing hands at any denomination and still win the
session.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jw776655" <jw776655@y...> wrote:
Harry: As usual, you've said that more diplomatically than I would.
However, I'd like to point out several areas that should be expanded
upon.
1. I have no idea how long it takes for play to approach ER, and it's
anybody's guess. One scan of the subject whenever it comes up on
vpFREE will support that. My strategy disregards game EV, ER, etc.
etc. and instead concentrates on increasing the opportunity of
hitting a quad that can make a difference. When a hand comes along
that dictates a deviation from optimal play, it's because there's an
immediate goal in mind and not a possible 35 or 40 credits of
additional play. These hands are not going to happen in any session
the millions of times it would take to approach mathematical EV, and
in the few times they do show there's no one who can say the big
winner will not appear. Some of my biggest winners over the years
have happened that way. A $25 royal/ two special quads with kickers
on $25DDB, and one similar on $10DDB--all within 3 weeks in '04; a
$10 royal; numerous Aces on the $5 games; and quad 2's on $25 TBP+.
Those wins just are not ever going to get neutralized by millions of
similar hands played to a loss or lesser winner. And that's just as
the strategy was developed to do.
2. I recognize most whom I teach or advise will never fit the mold
required to play as I do---but I clearly tell them that. Except for 2
individuals, I've encouraged every player to scale down the
denominations based on their stated gambling bankroll. Sometimes even
to the penny level to start.
3. I'm glad to see you don't fault me for promoting my strategy. I do
believe that if you included the fact that I do not sell it in any
way, that I willingly will meet with anyone who asks for discussions,
and that I don't have annoying pop-ups or ridiculous Internet gaming
site ads on my site--it would begin to tell more of the whole story
about me. At the core of my argument is the fact that I do not
believe expert strategy works based on experience, those who give the
perception that they've been successful with it usually are in the vp
business making money that way instead of how they would have us
believe they do, and no one but me has EVER offered publicly to prove
beyond any reasonable doubt that I actually do what I say I do in
terms of profiting. These are reasons many players are now in my
camp. Common sense really does drive many players, and unlike the
gurus of the game, I'm personally committed to offerring free
information to help players do better and enjoy the game more, rather
than grabbing credit card numbers at every turn of the page. And most
people can see why that is.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
The Singer methodology isn't appropriate for those who want to
long-haul it in the casino. Over a large number of sessions (but
hardly the ubiquitously cited "long-term") play quickly approaches
ER. And, as you suggest, Singer's play guidance doesn't alter that.But grinding out play isn't everyone's dream, nor is being a slave
to
positive ER. Some want to play rather casually on their own terms.
Singer offers a feasible means by which they can approach play with
a
decent shot at coming out a winner.
That system isn't for the faint hearted. It requires a sizable
bankroll -- something that, at the core, Singer makes no bones
about.
Further, it carries a ROR that takes a strong stomach. These two
factors make it viable for a select few and not the masses -- but it
is viable.The basis is simple ... in the relatively short run, game volatility
can be expected to often advance a player to a positive position at
some point in time. The more you ramp up volatility, via higher
variance games and advancement to higher denomination play, the more
you increase the probability of achieving a profit position in
play.
Mind you, there's a sizable downside of substantial loss on the
other
end of that volatility. Thus the high bankroll requirement.
There's nothing unsound in this in principal and that's something
that
bears recognition. At the same time, the realities are such that
the
system will only appeal to a select number of players who crave that
excitement, are prepared to accept the sizable dollar risk, and are
willing to walk from play for good when a reasonable profit goal it
achieved (one best defined in terms of the loss their willing to
bear).
Personally I'm not familiar with anyone who meets this profile.
But I
have no doubt that they exist and certainly Singer is among them.
The
constraints of "advantage play" hold little interest to them.
Singer's method is going to attract those players who
find "advantage
play" doesn't suit their play desires. The perverse thing is that
most are unfit candidates for sound Singer play and its risks but
don't recognize it. Singer encourages such players to modify his
system without any real defined constraints. This is leading them
down the garden path.But, to be frank, these players largely will run astray of common
sense even if left to their own devices. I can't foul Singer much
for
any real crime here.
I don't fault Singer in promoting his strategy. And, at heart, I
find
him a reasoned soul. I have a distaste, though, for the aggressive
and contentious diatribe that he introduces into discussions at
times
when challenged by someone who shows disrespect for him. And the
intense, often personally focussed, criticism he lobs at
the "experts"
is entirely unsavory.
Have I proved myself a fence-sitter again, or just someone who
rarely
···
sees things in black-and-white?
- Harry
I wrote "If they insist on playing or they want to make a profit, the
best shot
is to bet their entire gambling bankroll on the bet with the lowest
house edge, then they either lose all their money or they double up
and then quit."
That should have read "...and then quit forever".
rsing1111 wrote:
1. I have no idea how long it takes for play to approach ER, and
it's anybody's guess.
I'd argue that. Statistics isn't a finger in the wind science and to
disregard the results of statistical calculations is largely a
rejection of scientific fact (not theory).
Given a stated threshold of deviation from ER (say +/- 1%) and a
desired probability that your play results are within that threshold
(say 99%), it's possible to calculate the number of hands played at
which you meet these criteria.
That number of hands can be surprisingly small, depending upon the
game characteristics. If you look at the number of hands played after
which you have very little expectation of a positive result for a game
with a 97% ER, you're hardly looking at lifetimes of play.
The situations under which you arrive at an expectation that it will
take millions of hands before you have a strong confidence of a "long
term" result typically involves a very small ER deviation threshold,
such as 0.1%.
In any case, there's no guesswork in these calculations and there's
every element of the same reliability as is found in the calculations
that life insurance companies use to assess mortality and set policy
premiums. Life insurance companies that have run into financial
troubles have never met that fate as a consequence of faulty
expectations. Instead, they've make unwise gambles against those
expectations, something that plagues many casino players as well.
2. I recognize most whom I teach or advise will never fit the mold
required to play as I do---but I clearly tell them that. Except for
2 individuals, I've encouraged every player to scale down the
denominations based on their stated gambling bankroll. Sometimes
even to the penny level to start.
There's an implicit problem here, though. Scale down your system to
denominations that are appropriate for a typical bankroll and the
consequence is that the win objective will likely be unsatisfyingly
small for many. Frankly, while some aspects of what you write are
quite rigid in stating what's necessary to pursue your strategy with a
reasonably strong likelihood of successfully achieving the players
objectives, there's a lot of room to interpret your guidance with
considerable latitude. I'd assert that the bulk of players seeking
guidance from your strategy are likely to unwisely misapply it ...
particularly players with modest bankrolls.
Of course, there's an element of this in the advice that anyone might
offer another player. However, I think your strategy is considerable
more prone to it than others ... particularly because those who are
drawn to it likely have a tendency to rebel against any strict guidance.
At the core of my argument is the fact that I do not believe expert
strategy works based on experience ...
You know that I differ with you on this. Personally, I'm of the hard
core "EV/ER" school in my play. But I thoroughly recognize that this
approach will not suit everyone. Your system offers an alternative
for those who have goals that are consistent with it.
You've generally stated that you had a lifetime profit goal after
which you'd walk from the game. That's a critical element. However,
I've seen suggestions in what you write that your system is reasonable
for those who are looking to stay permanently in the game. Your
system is ill-suited for that.
- Harry
From: "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
I don't fault Singer in promoting his strategy. And, at heart, I find
him a reasoned soul. I have a distaste, though, for the aggressive
and contentious diatribe that he introduces into discussions at times
when challenged by someone who shows disrespect for him. And the
intense, often personally focussed, criticism he lobs at the "experts"
is entirely unsavory.Have I proved myself a fence-sitter again, or just someone who rarely
sees things in black-and-white?
···
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent post, as usual, Harry!
I agree completely, but not quite as eloquently............(-;
I have said from the start - way back in the days if VPhell - I don't care how you play your game. In fact, I'd love to read about any and all ideas, then make my own decision. Singer's attitude toward this has been to lash out at anyone who follows the "gurus" - as you said, somewhat distasteful.....but always entertaining!
SK
"I'm starting to get more compassionate. I gotta watch that."
"Michael Jackson missed his calling. If he had become a Catholic Priest he could have spent thirty or forty years blowing all the little boys he wanted, and no one would have san a word."
"People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point."
From George Carlin "When will Jesus Bring the Porkchops?"
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter"
<harry.porter@v...> wrote:
I'd argue that. Statistics isn't a finger in the wind science and
todisregard the results of statistical calculations is largely a
rejection of scientific fact (not theory).
If it were all that easy and scientific, then the gurus wouldn't
disagree on the definition. I'm also not sold on your
explanation/analogy. Life expectancy is hardly comparable to gaming
expectancy--although I'd give you an A+ for creativity on that one.
Casinos would be out of business if long-term parameters were
bounded by such simplicity. Instead, I steadfastly believe just as
the casinos do--that long-term is measurable only thru the life of
the machine. That's why so many players lose--whether they're so-
called advantage players or not. Luck is the only determinant that
separates the very few consistent winners from the very, very many
losers.
> 2. I recognize most whom I teach or advise will never fit the
mold
> required to play as I do---but I clearly tell them that. Except
for
> 2 individuals, I've encouraged every player to scale down the
> denominations based on their stated gambling bankroll. Sometimes
> even to the penny level to start.I'd assert that the bulk of players seeking
guidance from your strategy are likely to unwisely misapply it ...
particularly players with modest bankrolls.
It's also entirely possible that 99% of all players entering optimal-
play strategy will either not be committed enough, not intelligent
enough, or not patient enough to be successful with it. And nearly
all of them will not be consistently lucky enough to make it a
memorable event in their lives. One difference worth noting: They
PAY UP FRONT for the right to play optimally. I ask for nothing, and
I ask for nothing because I make my money from playing. I believe it
to be immoral to take other gamblers' money while giving them the
impression that your famous name automatically means you are a big
success. It makes no sense.
However, I think your strategy is considerable
more prone to it than others ... particularly because those who are
drawn to it likely have a tendency to rebel against any strict
guidance.
I'm curious as to why you would say that. I'm the originator, and it
was not due to a rebellious attitude. I simply did not win with
optimal play, and I have all the tools to have been successful with
it. Indeed, almost if not every player I've taught/advised goes
after this because they are not doing well with long-term strategy.
> At the core of my argument is the fact that I do not believe
expert strategy works based on experience ...
You know that I differ with you on this. Personally, I'm of the
hard core "EV/ER" school in my play. But I thoroughly recognize
that this approach will not suit everyone. Your system offers an
alternative for those who have goals that are consistent with it.
It's not a matter of what 'suits' me. 6 years tells the tale, and I
was as committed to it as Don Juan was to nailing his neighbor's
wife and all of her daughters.
You've generally stated that you had a lifetime profit goal after
which you'd walk from the game. That's a critical element.
Yes, $1million and no more. I need $349k, and as long as I stay
healthy then I have plenty of time to attain that goal--at my own
pace. I'm not going to be able to travel so often from now on due to
a growing number of infant family members, but I'll beat the casinos
at least once a month for sure. Maybe in 5 more years? You gotta
love it...."One million dollars from video poker in 6 months" vs.
one million dollars in 14 years! Which sounds like the long-term
winner to you?
>However,
I've seen suggestions in what you write that your system is
reasonable
for those who are looking to stay permanently in the game. Your
system is ill-suited for that.
I've never really thought about that aspect. Certainly, from my
point of view, one who plays this method will be far better off
financially and therefore could carry on much longer than the
optimal-play person.
rsing1111 wrote:
Casinos would be out of business if long-term parameters were
bounded by such simplicity. Instead, I steadfastly believe just as
the casinos do--that long-term is measurable only thru the life of
the machine. That's why so many players lose--whether they're so-
called advantage players or not. Luck is the only determinant that
separates the very few consistent winners from the very, very many
losers.
It's also entirely possible that 99% of all players entering optimal-
play strategy will either not be committed enough, not intelligent
enough, or not patient enough to be successful with it. And nearly
all of them will not be consistently lucky enough to make it a
memorable event in their lives.
Having been playing VP since 1980, and having worked for a major casino as a Electronics Maintenance Shift Supervisor, I completely agree with all of the above.
Back around 2000, when Skip's group was still free, there was much discussion, and still occasionally is, what long term really means. Because the current crop of gurus so say, long term on VP boards say that long term is the individual or some abstract number of plays. BS!! Casinos could care less about the long term of a VP player. It is the long term of each machine is all they care about. If a machine does not have a hold of XX, it is replaced or modified. It is that simple. Yes, casinos do occasionally make mistakes, but it does not take them long to correct them.
I have no doubt that there are a few out there that play perfect and eek out a wage of $2 to $4 an hour over a very long haul. They are the lucky ones. And occasionally someone gets real lucky and hits a really big one. But if you believe all the tales of winning that I read on these boards, I've got a bridge I would love to sell you. No one wants to be perceived as a loser. The player the casino hates the worse is the "hit and run" person, which is what RS is, because the casino it will not get a chance to get it's money back. If you can "hit and run" with some consistency, I would not play with a slot card either.
The casinos also are very aware of these VP news groups. They actually think they are great because it fosters a belief in more and more people that they think they can actually win if they keep playing. The only reason they monitor the VP groups is to see if they screwed up a promotion or a bank of machines. These groups will let them know days in advance of them finding it out for themselves. This is also why some LV locals will not post really good plays, then get bad mouthed for reporting it after the casino closes it down.
Unfortunately, there are those that have completely closed their minds and only believe what they want to believe and bow down to their gurus, who can't be wrong because they say so, and besides, the math does not lie. But the math in only on the side of the machine, not the player. Their only retort to this is to bad mouth and call people names. I guess it must make them think they are superior. If it sounds like I have bad mouthed the gurus here, I probably have, but I have not named names. You should hear me in person. I am not so kind. I have actually seen a slot club printout of a guru play over one year. They lost 60k in just that one casino. Was it, or will it every be reported on the VP boards?? Not in my lifetime. Why don't I name names and casinos?? Because it was probably illegal for me to see that printout and I will not jeopardize the many casino workers I have known for many years. I have told some VP friends however on a one on one basis that I could deny later.
I don't post very often anymore to any of the VP boards because, frankly, I don't need the abuse I know will come after this post by those that just don't want to hear it. Besides, you cannot ever agree with RS without taking some kind of abuse.
I will be back in LV for 7 nights next month. Am I a winner? Of course. Now about that bridge.......
Bob
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Sommer - Top of the World Coins
<NL7HT@b...> wrote:
I have
actually seen a slot club printout of a guru play over one year. They
lost 60k in just that one casino. Was it, or will it every be reported
on the VP boards?? Not in my lifetime. Why don't I name names and
casinos?? Because it was probably illegal for me to see that printout
and I will not jeopardize the many casino workers I have known for many
years. I have told some VP friends however on a one on one basis that I
could deny later.
And that's EXACTLY how and why I know what I know about several of
these people, as well as several that boast of being winners on vpFREE
but do not have famous names. The information is there, and if it's
tight then money certainly talks--ESPECIALLY in a city like Las Vegas.
Dick brings up the point that it is illegal--which it is--but if no
one's hurt by it's disclosure (and I NEVER name names in my columns)
then it's simply up for debate. At least I have the info I need to
write effective articles, and to understand that my years of losing to
optimal play were not by any stretch away from the norm.
As Bob says, will you NEVER see anyone post of such a loss on vpFREE.
For some it's bad for business. For others it's bad for their ego. And
still others are able to 'make it all go away' in their minds by
manufacturing their own excessive values for all that casino junk they
collect just to plug the hole of losing money. Yes, some expert-play
players win of course, but it's not because they've conquered the 'long-
term'. Like Dick with all those royals in 6-months, they've been lucky.
I know they prefer to attribute it to their ability to play 'to an
advantage' but there's really no such thing and they really know it.
I have actually seen a slot club printout of a guru play over one year.
They lost 60k in just that one casino. Was it, or will it every be
reported on the VP boards?? Not in my lifetime.
I am not sure if this 60K loss means anything. The guru could still
be winning. As an example I play an average of about 4 hours a week at
a casino about 7 miles from my house. Since the first of the year I
have lost a little more than $1800. In the same period I have
collected about $2050 in points and over $1400 in bounce back. There
is also the close to $4000 in comps which means little to a VP guru
but quite a bit to me. Could it be that the guru was having results
like mine only at a much higher level of play?
I am not sure if this 60K loss means anything. The guru could still
be winning. As an example I play an average of about 4 hours a week
at
a casino about 7 miles from my house. Since the first of the year I
have lost a little more than $1800. In the same period I have
collected about $2050 in points and over $1400 in bounce back. There
is also the close to $4000 in comps which means little to a VP guru
but quite a bit to me. Could it be that the guru was having results
like mine only at a much higher level of play?
It's more likely that the 'guru' would be more than willing to say "I
did lose $60,000 at that casino, but I had a winning year because of
all the others that I played at, and I had a net win for the year". No
one can really nail down who does what in reality, with all the
variables out there. I just take whatever info I can get however I can
get it, and look at what makes sense and what doesn't, to formulate my
opinions.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpearlkc" <EAtkinson@k...> wrote:
> I have actually seen a slot club printout of a guru play over one
> year. They lost 60k in just that one casino. Was it, or will it every
> be reported on the VP boards?? Not in my lifetime.
vpearlkc replied:
I am not sure if this 60K loss means anything. The guru could still be
winning. As an example I play an average of about 4 hours a week at a
casino about 7 miles from my house. Since the first of the year I have
lost a little more than $1800. In the same period I have collected about
$2050 in points and over $1400 in bounce back. There is also the close
to $4000 in comps which means little to a VP guru but quite a bit to me.
Could it be that the guru was having results like mine only at a much
higher level of play?
We play regularly at about a dozen LV casinos and in
a given year we do a lot better at some than others.
To get our overall results you have to look at the whole
picture, plus add in cash back and bounceback cash.
vpFae
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Sommer - Top of the World
Coins <NL7HT@b...> wrote:
Having been playing VP since 1980, and having worked for a major
casino
as a Electronics Maintenance Shift Supervisor, I completely agree
with
all of the above.
That's too bad.
Back around 2000, when Skip's group was still free, there was much
discussion, and still occasionally is, what long term really
means.
Because the current crop of gurus so say, long term on VP boards
say
that long term is the individual or some abstract number of plays.
BS!!
No, it's not BS. It's mathematical fact. There always seems to be
confusion about opinions and facts. The facts are that long term play
with an advantage will yield winners. The larger the advantage the
larger the number of winners. However, not EVERYONE will win. The
mathematics also point out that there will be some long term losers
who played EVERY hand at an advantage just like there will be some
long term winners who play every hand at a disadvantage.
Casinos could care less about the long term of a VP player. It is
the long term of each machine is all they care about. If a machine
does
not have a hold of XX, it is replaced or modified. It is that
simple.
Yes, casinos do occasionally make mistakes, but it does not take
them
long to correct them.
That is why you see fewer and fewer positive plays especially at the
higher denoms. Doesn't this contradict your previous assertion? If
players don't have an advantage how can a casino "make mistakes"?
I have no doubt that there are a few out there that play perfect
and eek
out a wage of $2 to $4 an hour over a very long haul. They are the
lucky ones. And occasionally someone gets real lucky and hits a
really
big one. But if you believe all the tales of winning that I read
on
these boards, I've got a bridge I would love to sell you.
I think most of the tales of winning are true. However, they are only
part of the story. You are right, most folks don't advertise their
losses. However, it does not mean they don't win overall. It just
means they don't always win and have losing streaks that eat up most
of the big wins.
No one wants
to be perceived as a loser. The player the casino hates the worse
is
the "hit and run" person, which is what RS is, because the casino
it
will not get a chance to get it's money back.
Rob is not a hit and run person. He plays monthly or more often.
If you can "hit and run"
with some consistency, I would not play with a slot card either.
How is this possible? To do something consistently requires a long
term advantage. Isn't that what you just argued against?
The casinos also are very aware of these VP news groups. They
actually
think they are great because it fosters a belief in more and more
people
that they think they can actually win if they keep playing. The
only
reason they monitor the VP groups is to see if they screwed up a
promotion or a bank of machines. These groups will let them know
days
in advance of them finding it out for themselves. This is also why
some
LV locals will not post really good plays, then get bad mouthed for
reporting it after the casino closes it down.
Reporting VERY good plays is a questionable tactic. I will post some
plays but not the really good ones. They are sure to be killed by
other players or the casinos. You might as well go straight to the
slot supervisor and tell them.
Unfortunately, there are those that have completely closed their
minds
and only believe what they want to believe and bow down to their
gurus,
who can't be wrong because they say so, and besides, the math does
not
lie.
The math does NOT lie. However, it is possible to misrepresent
exactly what the math says. It's wrong if anyone is doing that. I
think that is one problem of forums like VPFree. The general tone of
the board might give one the impression they cannot lose without most
individuals on the board feeling that way.
But the math in only on the side of the machine, not the player.
The math is not on anyones' side. It simply is.
Their only retort to this is to bad mouth and call people names. I
guess it must make them think they are superior. If it sounds like
I
have bad mouthed the gurus here, I probably have, but I have not
named
names. You should hear me in person. I am not so kind. I have
actually seen a slot club printout of a guru play over one year.
They
lost 60k in just that one casino. Was it, or will it every be
reported
on the VP boards?? Not in my lifetime. Why don't I name names and
casinos??
Also, it probably isn't the whole story. It is very possible to lose
at one casino over some timeframe while winning at others. This is
especially true if promotions are factored into the equation. Last
year my wife and I hit a few promotions and lost at others. The
casino where we hit big would show us as BIG winners, some of the
others might show us as net losers. Knowing only part of the story
and using that as EVIDENCE of your position is crazy.
Because it was probably illegal for me to see that printout
and I will not jeopardize the many casino workers I have known for
many
years. I have told some VP friends however on a one on one basis
that I
could deny later.
I don't post very often anymore to any of the VP boards because,
frankly, I don't need the abuse I know will come after this post by
those that just don't want to hear it. Besides, you cannot ever
agree
with RS without taking some kind of abuse.
You can agree with anyone you wish. However, if you choose to
disregard the facts then you will always invite disagreement with
your posts.
···
I will be back in LV for 7 nights next month. Am I a winner? Of
course. Now about that bridge.......Bob