rgmustain,
A few messages ago I used a not too happy opera analogy to say that I
find good things in both advantage play and the stuff RS talks about,
but I should stress now that I'm not an expert at either. It would,
then, not be right for me to discuss RS's methods in detail since I
would necessarily have to make too many assumptions out of thin air;
I know even less about how he wins and the theory behind that, than
about what is claimed for advantage play. I do think that he is being
examined very carefully with a magnifying glass, and unduly
criticized, when other matters related to Video Poker are just
merrily accepted. Let me give you an example I have already mentioned
in the past.
About a year ago all of the Spin Poker machines in Las Vegas were
closed down. This happened both at the Strip and at the casinos
outside the Strip. Some of those machines remained shut down for
weeks, I guess enough mechanics of the company involved were not
available to deal with all of the machines in a short period. Not
very much was said on the news, or discussed on the Internet. I asked
at some casinos, and was told the machines had to be serviced.
Apparently there was a glitch that gamblers could exploit to win at
those machines, and this glitch had to be dealt with, I'm not sure if
by reprogramming those machines, or changing a chip. I believe the
details of this are of extreme interest to VP fans, yet when I use
Google to find more about it, there is nothing. On the other hand,
there is abundant literature on every single new VP game that comes
out, together with an examination of the way it works and often a
strategy to use. That strategy, of course, assumes the typical things
that are assumed when strategies are computed. This is as it should
be in a multi billion gambling business. If there are little tricks a
gambler might use to win at machines, the manufacturers will not help
the gamblers find those tricks out. In any case, I sure would like to
read about all the details pertaining to the problem with those Spin
Poker machines more than the endless criticisms of RS methods. On the
Internet I find a wealth on the second subject, not on the first.
The article quoted many times about how progressions cannot overcome
expectations is valid when its premises are true; but again, bringing
this article into the discussion of RS methods already shows a slant
against RS. The article, for example, assumes a "p", the probability
of a win on an individual play, and makes that "p" independent of
everything else. This assumption was obviously not true of the Spin
Poker machines that were serviced. Why do we demand it be true of
whatever method RS is presenting? It would seem that RS is saying
that yes, in a way, machines are predictable (I don't rule out that
the whole matter might be explained by RS just being lucky, as I said
before. I'm not an expert on RS's play.). I personally don't want to
take sides in this matter on whether machines are predictable or not,
but I do defend my position of skepticism. I don't know enough about
the machines to accept as an article of faith either the notion that
they are predictable or that they are not predictable. This is where
you and I definitely differ. You believe the odds are so low of
finding a predictable machine that the mere thought of it is a waste
of time. I tend to believe that if at one point all the Spin Poker
machines in Las Vegas were predictable I'm using the
word `predictable' in the widest possible sense that would
include `exploitable'- then the odds of finding predictable machines
might not be as low as you suppose. On the other hand, examples of
games where one can profit by a progression are not rare. Take a game
of Blackjack with rules such as to give about a 0.5% advantage to the
house with optimum strategy. With card counting and adequate
progressive betting the advantage changes in favor of the player. All
I'm saying here in this example, and no more, is that there are
gambling situations where progressions work. If a "slide rule type"
to use a RS phrase- had taken the article mentioned at the start of
this paragraph and applied it to Blackjack under all circumstances
assuming some p with a fixed value less than 0.5, this person would
have determined one would lose playing Blackjack in the long term,
which is wrong as a universal statement, though I must admit the
casinos are working towards making the "slide rule type" right in the
case of Blackjack, LOL. RS has often criticized the "slide rule
types" and stuff like that, which almost forces me to conclude he
does not accept as working premises for the behavior of VP machines
what the article assumes.
Okay, I think I have included answers to all the questions and
comments you made such as why sometimes in gambling a progression is
better than max bet; how the math article does not apply when "p" is
a function of time; our disagreement on the possible odds of finding
predictability in machines; etc., etc. As far as me not wanting to
understand the `proof', I would word that differently. I would want
to believe that RS has stumbled upon properties of machines that he
is using, and that if explicitly exhibited would make the assumptions
upon which the `proof' is based not applicable to his system.
As far as I can tell, a phrase in your message remains uncommented.
You say, and I quote,
"Then you're buying Rob's BS. Advantage play does not require banging
away for hours on smoky casinos. It's just a good lifetime approach
to VP."
Let us quote one section of the FAQ's on vpFREE,
"
(with a 95% confidence factor)
the actual results for 10/7 DB,
played with perfect strategy, should be within 1.0% of expected
results after 1,085,465 hands, and within 0.1% after 108,546,482
hands."
I really believe that what is implied in that sentence on the FAQs
is "banging away for hours in smoky casinos." 10/7 DB is not
available at Mandalay Bay, Venetian or Bellagio, and one hundred
million hands at a thousand hands per hour take ten thousand hours to
play. At forty hours a week or playing, that would take some 250
weeks to complete, about five years, and then your results might not
be positive aside from buffets and blenders, perhaps. The machine
returns 100.17% but its strategy with all the penalties is
complicated, and humans do make errors. Your chances of having
extracted a little fraction of a percentage are very good after so
many hands, but the probability of coming out behind, though low as
we see, is not infinitesimal. Please note that a tiny little
percentage represents a huge amount of money. In the case of a dollar
machine, 0.1% would be half a million dollars after a hundred million
hands. I would hate after so many hours banging away to end up being
one of those five out of a hundred people who is outside and a few
tenths of a percentage to the left of the 0.1% bracket of the
expected result. There is nothing wrong about playing that way for
whoever wants to do it, as far as I'm concerned, but I think it works
better if you live in Las Vegas and play, say, a few hours every day.
As I said, I only visit Las Vegas, not live there. Years ago I spent
the greater part of a vacation at the uncomfortable and smoky Barbary
Coast playing FPDW. I was not lucky at all, and now I would rather
try one of those RS crazy systems at MB any day. Those long hours at
the casinos that offer the good games, for me, are not what I
consider "a good lifetime approach to VP".
I don't know if I'll post much more on this topic since I will just
repeat myself too much, and I'm not an ardent follower of either
advantage play or RS. I have mentioned what I don't like about
advantage play, and it is obvious what I like about it; I do learn
the strategies, practice on the softwares, and I'm aware of general
benefits, cash back and comps and double points and so on, and will
take advantage of all that if it does not imply running around town
with coupons and spending long hours on uncomfortable places. I have
mentioned I like RS's non-reliance on the long term, his questioning
of accepted truths, the moving around to different machines his
method of play implies. I find all of that leads to a more diverting
way of play. I have not mentioned what I don't like about RS. I would
never risk the huge bankrolls he mentions for me gambling that
amount of money, if I could, would not be entertainment but torture-,
and I would not go up to those very expensive machines he sometimes
goes to. Another aspect about RS methods is that they remain a bit
obscure. For example, in 10/7 DB, I would not know when is it exactly
that it is to my advantage to hold and Ace rather than A 3 4 suited.
This reminds me again of Blackjack where changes in strategy are
sometimes beneficial. Of course, in Blackjack it is a depleting deck
that generates de cards dealt, in Video Poker it is the electronic
pseudo-random number generator and we don't know its ways exactly,
they are proprietary. Blackjack is, by the way, also a game where
both advantage play and progressive systems can coexist. Take the
previous example of the game played with a 0.5% house advantage if
played with perfect strategy, and say you get more than 0.5% in
comps, promotions, invitations to tournaments and such, then it is
exactly what advantage play recommends, and in the long term playing
that game would be profitable. Now say someone discovers that after a
bunch of fives and fours come out it is better to up the bet and to
change strategy, for example, take insurance. Say this person starts
winning in the relative short term, and talking about his great
methods. The advantage players in pre-1962 days would tell this guy
he is either crazy or lucky.
In any case, I think RS too often is likened to the devil, but to me
he reminds me rather of Christ, everyone wants to crucify him. Why is
that so? If advantage playing is so wonderful, and everyone
practicing it is making money, why bother with anything RS says? On
the other hand, if RS is making a lot of money, why spill the beans
on himself? Why not keep silent and amass a fortune with his
methods? So you see, I'm not a fanatic of either of the two
approaches to VP that seem to have clashed in your dispute with
deadin7; neither way, advantage play or RS methods, is perfectly
adequate to my tastes and psychological tolerance, the first demands
too many hours, the second demands too much cash for short sessions.
I wish Tony Blair played VP and adapted his third way to the game,
LOL, it would be something different to try.
Royals to all.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:>
>
> Rgmustain,
>
> Hi. Being a computer programmer, then, you know how a pseudo-
random
> number sequence is generated, and you know that if you have that
> program you can determine each and every single number in the
> sequence. If there is a certain machine whose outcome corresponds
to
> each number in the sequence, you can win on that machine all the
> time. If there are many machines like that, you can use a
> progression, if you want, and win on those machines.
I doubt you'll find any VP machines where this happens. This is
kind
of like winning the lottery. It always happens to someone else. In
fact, there are many more lottery winners than people who find
predictable machines.
In any event, why would you ever use a progression if you found a
machine that was predictable. You should always bet the max.
> The article
> quoted in another post about progressive systems will have
absolutely
> no relevance for the case presented here since the first equation
in
> that article does not describe the present situation at all with
any
> degree of relevance.
What situation? You mean a predictable machine?
>
> If you think the above is impossible, I will again quote the
famous
> true Keno anecdote in Casino de Montreal. Years ago a player
there
> noticed that the machine was turned on in the morning and the
same
> numbers seemed to come out in the games that he remembered from
> previous days. The guy started getting tickets every morning
betting
> those numbers. He hit many tickets for hefty amounts. I don't
> remember the details, but it was in the five or six figures, on
> consecutive days. He awoke the interest of the management, of
course,
> and eventually it was discovered that a pseudo-random number
> generating sequence was started every day with the same seed to
> determine the outcome of Keno games. This Keno game was not
played
> with ping-pong balls but with a computer. The player was allowed
to
> keep his hefty winnings and, of course, they took measures to
have
> different sequences each day. It was not important in this true
> anecdote for the player to know mathematics or computer
programming,
> all he had to do is be observant and have an open mind. A gambler
who
> blindly believes in "independence of events" and sees during
> breakfast, one morning after the other, that the numbers in the
third
> game of Keno of the day are, say, for the sake of an example, 1-7-
13-
> 18-19-45-77-80, etc., and are followed in the fourth game by the
> numbers 2-17-40-41-42-43-44-45, etc. and shrugs his shoulders and
> dismisses the thing as a fluke will not win as much in this case
as
> the gambler who in the following day purchases tickets with those
> numbers just for the heck of it. This second gambler does not
have
to
> have his head full of mathematical theories in order to win. By
the
> way, to tie this up with the mathematical article mentioned, this
guy
> could have used a progression, for example, buy a dollar ticket
for
> the first game, a two dollar ticket for the second game and so
on,
> and win every morning before they changed the way they were
dealing
> numbers, LOL.
This really has nothing to do with the discusion at hand. Forget
the
progression, it's not relevant. And forget finding a predictable
machine, the odds are so low it's really a waste of time thinking
about it.
>
> By the way, I never said that I thought games were not fair. I
try
> not to think about it. I know there are thousands if not tens of
> thousands or more- of people involved in the gambling industry in
> different capacities in one way or another, and I like to think
most
> of them are honest. I just know machines are more complicated
than
> mathematical equations. A mathematical equation is more like a
> Platonic ideal; I can't bang it with a hammer as I can a machine.
There are no math equations in a VP machine. Just programmable
chips.
They can be banged with a hammer if you like.
>
> I must add that I don't know Rob Singer and I have no reason
> whatsoever to defend whatever he says. I must say that I also
find
> going to a remote uncomfortable smoky casino to play in a
positive
> situation for hours because I know that the probability of coming
out
> ahead after millions of hands is good does not appeal to me very
> much;
Then you're buying Robs' BS. Advantage play does not require
banging
away for hours in smokey casinos. It's just a good lifetime
approach
to VP.
> I'd rather take a shot at a Singer scheme at Mandalay Bay on
> whatever machines they have there; thus I'd like to think he has
> stumbled into something useful.
Like I said, nothing wrong with using a progressive system on a
positive machine using expert play. Just expect bigger swings.
> Using logic I find that the arguments
> against him are not incontrovertible.
Yes they are. Just what didn't you understand about the proof? I
suspect it's that you really don't want to understand.
> If along the way I find I hit
> some Royals or make some profit at MB, so much the better.
>
> By the way, it would be interesting if Singer accepts your
invitation
> and meets with you in the Midwest for a session gambling. Of
course,
> nothing would be solved in the dispute you both have, we know in
the
> short term anything can happen; but wouldn't it be funny if he
does
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
> win a bundle?
>
> Royals to all.
Did you notice how Rob badmouthed both MN and AZ Indian casinos?
Neither of these states provide positive games that he knows how to
play. This makes me think he really does play mostly positive
machines when he'd rather travel 250 miles to NV. Why else would it
matter? You should contemplate that for awhile ...
Dick