vpFREE2 Forums

Intermediate Term Strategy.

#1

I thought with this question about 'intermediate term strategy' I
would divert the thread 'Refreshing Information', but it seems I just
added wood to the fire, LOL. Anyway, thanks for the replies. By the
way, these new kids on the block talking about 'name calling' should
read some of the 'refreshing' posts to see many more names.

Anyway, it seems BD in this week's column has furnished elements
to 'prove' RS's systems, unless I'm reading it all wrong. He says if
you play 1,200 VP hands you have about 95% chance of hitting a quad
or more. Now, let us take one of those progressive systems. The way
they are set up, if you hit a quad most likely you begin again in the
low denomination; on the other hand, by the time you reach the third
or fourth high denomination, you most likely have played over 1,200
hands and thus the chance of hitting a quad is near 100%. Before
signing off, I must stress the dangerous part, and that is those
experiences of people who have reported playing seven hours or even
13 hours with no quads. Gambling is not only a statistical science,
but a Kenny Rogers type of art, "you gotta know when to fold'em."

May you all have a hurricane Charlie of Aces.

#2

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

Anyway, it seems BD in this week's column has furnished elements
to 'prove' RS's systems, unless I'm reading it all wrong. He says

if

you play 1,200 VP hands you have about 95% chance of hitting a quad
or more. Now, let us take one of those progressive systems.

Bob Dancer, like our friend Dicky, copies parts of my site for his
own use. They're running low on theories and high on bill-paying.

#3

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

Anyway, it seems BD in this week's column has furnished elements
to 'prove' RS's systems, unless I'm reading it all wrong. He says

if

you play 1,200 VP hands you have about 95% chance of hitting a quad
or more. Now, let us take one of those progressive systems. The way
they are set up, if you hit a quad most likely you begin again in
the low denomination;

Many of the quads you get just keep you even.

on the other hand, by the time you reach the third
or fourth high denomination, you most likely have played over 1,200
hands and thus the chance of hitting a quad is near 100%.

Nope. The 95% value is BEFORE you start. At the time you reach the
3rd or 4th level your previous play doesn't magicly influence the
odds on your future hands. The odds of hitting a quad on the next
hand or next 1200 hands is still EXACTLY the same as when you
started. This is a difficult concept but true nonetheless. I would
venture to guess that this fallacy is also part of Rob's thinking.

···

Before
signing off, I must stress the dangerous part, and that is those
experiences of people who have reported playing seven hours or even
13 hours with no quads. Gambling is not only a statistical science,
but a Kenny Rogers type of art, "you gotta know when to fold'em."

May you all have a hurricane Charlie of Aces.

#4

Your guess is, as usual, wrong. That's a main problem with living a
life based on theory--you're almost always incorrect because you
choose not to have all the facts at your side before commenting on an
issue.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

Nope. The 95% value is BEFORE you start. At the time you reach the
3rd or 4th level your previous play doesn't magicly influence the
odds on your future hands. The odds of hitting a quad on the next
hand or next 1200 hands is still EXACTLY the same as when you
started. This is a difficult concept but true nonetheless. I would
venture to guess that this fallacy is also part of Rob's thinking.

#5

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

>
> Nope. The 95% value is BEFORE you start. At the time you reach

the

> 3rd or 4th level your previous play doesn't magicly influence the
> odds on your future hands. The odds of hitting a quad on the next
> hand or next 1200 hands is still EXACTLY the same as when you
> started. This is a difficult concept but true nonetheless. I

would

> venture to guess that this fallacy is also part of Rob's

thinking.

Your guess is, as usual, wrong.

Sure it is, Princess ... This from the man that thinks playing a hand
tomorrow is somehow different than playing another hand today.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#6

hand tomorrow is somehow different than playing another hand today.

And this from a fat boy in Minnesota who can only explain the make-up
of a chocolate cake, and his biggest thrill on his trip to LV is the
buffet scramble at Sam's Town.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

> Your guess is, as usual, wrong.

Sure it is, Princess ... This from the man that thinks playing a

#7

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:
> on the other hand, by the time you reach the third
> or fourth high denomination, you most likely have played over

1,200

> hands and thus the chance of hitting a quad is near 100%.

Nope. The 95% value is BEFORE you start. At the time you reach the
3rd or 4th level your previous play doesn't magicly influence the
odds on your future hands. The odds of hitting a quad on the next
hand or next 1200 hands is still EXACTLY the same as when you
started. This is a difficult concept but true nonetheless. I would
venture to guess that this fallacy is also part of Rob's thinking.

Well, if you hit a few quads when you have played the first ten hands
of those 1,200 hands, you can no longer say that the odds of hitting
no quads for those same 1,200 hands you have partly played, are still
five per cent, since you know you have hit quads. The opposite of
certainty has zero odds, not 5%. Since I was talking about this
particular 1,200 hands, the odds of hitting no quads in that group of
hands is zero, even if I have not finished playing all the hands.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#8

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
> <erchalb@c...> wrote:
> > on the other hand, by the time you reach the third
> > or fourth high denomination, you most likely have played over
1,200
> > hands and thus the chance of hitting a quad is near 100%.
>
> Nope. The 95% value is BEFORE you start. At the time you reach

the

> 3rd or 4th level your previous play doesn't magicly influence the
> odds on your future hands. The odds of hitting a quad on the next
> hand or next 1200 hands is still EXACTLY the same as when you
> started. This is a difficult concept but true nonetheless. I

would

> venture to guess that this fallacy is also part of Rob's

thinking.

>

Well, if you hit a few quads when you have played the first ten

hands

of those 1,200 hands, you can no longer say that the odds of

hitting

no quads for those same 1,200 hands you have partly played, are

still

five per cent, since you know you have hit quads. The opposite of
certainty has zero odds, not 5%. Since I was talking about this
particular 1,200 hands, the odds of hitting no quads in that group

of

hands is zero, even if I have not finished playing all the hands.

The only hands you can discuss probabilities for are the ones you
have not played. The hands you have already played don't figure into
the probability analysis. Probabilities are a tool for understanding
future possibilities.

At the end of the day, you say, "I played N hands and had M quads".
If N/M < 400 then you did better than average for quads.

Dick

Dick

#9

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > Your guess is, as usual, wrong.
>
> Sure it is, Princess ... This from the man that thinks playing a
hand tomorrow is somehow different than playing another hand today.

And this from a fat boy in Minnesota who can only explain the make-

up

of a chocolate cake, and his biggest thrill on his trip to LV is

the

buffet scramble at Sam's Town.

In other words, I'm right on. I can always tell when Princess Robbie
attempts to insult me. She has nothing intelligent to say and
amazingly thinks these grade school rants look smart. It's all part
of her projected self-loathing.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#10

> And this from a fat boy in Minnesota who can only explain the

make-up of a chocolate cake, and his biggest thrill on his trip to LV
is the buffet scramble at Sam's Town.

In other words, I'm right on. I can always tell when Princess

Robbie attempts to insult me. She has nothing intelligent to say and

amazingly thinks these grade school rants look smart. It's all part
of her projected self-loathing.

Smart....and true, to your chagrin (and my grin). Is there any truth
to the runor that the Pillsbury Dough Boy made a visit to Minnesota,
and you ate him?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#11

The only hands you can discuss probabilities for are the ones you
have not played. The hands you have already played don't figure

into

the probability analysis. Probabilities are a tool for

understanding

future possibilities.

At the end of the day, you say, "I played N hands and had M quads".
If N/M < 400 then you did better than average for quads.

Dick

Dick

Yes, I know that, but what is good for the geese should be good for
the gander. Advantage players, for example, have computed the
expected return of a machine, which is only strictly true after an
infinite number of hands. They do not plan to play infinite hands,
but talk about that return as a property of the machine, knowing full
well that the machine will not be eternal. They recommend a novice to
play this machine rather than that because its return is better. So
why can't RS recommend a system that benefits from the 95%
probability of hitting one or more quads in 1,200 hands?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#12

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

> The only hands you can discuss probabilities for are the ones you
> have not played. The hands you have already played don't figure
into the probability analysis. > Dick

Yes, I know that, but what is good for the geese should be good for
the gander. Advantage players, for example, have computed the
expected return of a machine, which is only strictly true after an
infinite number of hands. They do not plan to play infinite hands,
but talk about that return as a property of the machine, knowing

full well that the machine will not be eternal. They recommend a
novice to play this machine rather than that because its return is
better. So why can't RS recommend a system that benefits from the 95%

probability of hitting one or more quads in 1,200 hands?

His answer to this will be precious. When he slaps his slide rule out
of tilt mode, he'll simply say the math model doesn't figure common
sense into the analyses, Rob is a liar and a fraud, and the Princess
is an idiot. But you'll likely have to wait a bit for his answer.
It's Friday night, and he's probably out shaking his booty at the
local Injun joint again.

#13

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

>
> The only hands you can discuss probabilities for are the ones you
> have not played. The hands you have already played don't figure
into
> the probability analysis. Probabilities are a tool for
understanding
> future possibilities.
>
> At the end of the day, you say, "I played N hands and had M

quads".

> If N/M < 400 then you did better than average for quads.
>
> Dick

Yes, I know that, but what is good for the geese should be good for
the gander. Advantage players, for example, have computed the
expected return of a machine, which is only strictly true after an
infinite number of hands.

Just remember it can be HIGHER than average as well as lower. You
should not get hung up on the infinity.

They do not plan to play infinite hands,

And, this is no different with or without a progression.

but talk about that return as a property of the machine, knowing

full

well that the machine will not be eternal. They recommend a novice

to

play this machine rather than that because its return is better. So
why can't RS recommend a system that benefits from the 95%
probability of hitting one or more quads in 1,200 hands?

Does a single quad guarantee a winning session every time? No, not
even close. Look at the total payback % for each type of winner. For
example, in bonus poker the payback below quads is around 85%. It's
even lower in the high variance games. As I mentioned before, many of
the quads will just keep you even. Some won't even do that. Let's say
you get one of the quads at the first level and you lose anyway. What
happens to your 95% figure then?

All Robs' system does is exchange more small session wins for a few
larger losses. Sure, it can work for you if you are lucky enough to
hit RFs (or other big wins) when playing high in the progression.
However, others who play are just as likely to hit the RFs, etc. when
playing at the low levels adn never hit them at high levels. For
them, the losses will greatly exceed what they expect.

The payback of the game does not change with a progression. That is a
fact. Martingale like systems such as Robs have been tried for many
years and the casinos are still doing fine.

Dick

#14

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > And this from a fat boy in Minnesota who can only explain the
make-up of a chocolate cake, and his biggest thrill on his trip to

LV

is the buffet scramble at Sam's Town.
>
> In other words, I'm right on. I can always tell when Princess
Robbie attempts to insult me. She has nothing intelligent to say

and

> amazingly thinks these grade school rants look smart. It's all

part

> of her projected self-loathing.

Smart....and true, to your chagrin (and my grin). Is there any

truth

to the runor that the Pillsbury Dough Boy made a visit to

Minnesota,

and you ate him?

PDB lives just down the block from me and just last week he was
telling me about a little experience he had. Seems this runt from AZ
was wandering around the casinos in MN looking for someone. This runt
said the guy he was looking for was making him look like such an
idiot he wanted to poke him in the eye. Since PDB knew me personally,
he told the runt where he could find me. PBD even offered to set up a
meeting. According to PDB, the runt actually wet his pants at this
time and went running away. PDB indicated it was the best laugh he'd
had in months.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#15

Just remember it can be HIGHER than average as well as lower. You
should not get hung up on the infinity.

You mean like you are? You seem to wear the glove when
it 'feels 'good' to do it, and take it off when it doesn't.

So

> why can't RS recommend a system that benefits from the 95%
> probability of hitting one or more quads in 1,200 hands?

Does a single quad guarantee a winning session every time? No, not
even close. Look at the total payback % for each type of winner.

For example, in bonus poker the payback below quads is around 85%.

And this is supposed to mean something in a short-term session? I'll
repeat what our friend here said: "You can't have it both ways."
Either accept the fact that anything can happen at anytime when you
play for short-term goals having nothing to do with waaay out there
somewhere, or tell the guy you just don't understand.

It's

even lower in the high variance games. As I mentioned before, many

of the quads will just keep you even. Some won't even do that. Let's
say you get one of the quads at the first level and you lose anyway.
What happens to your 95% figure then?

Again, you confuse the issue with your math model nonsense. Here's
your answer, and I'm the one you should be asking unless you are
afraid to. When you get a quad at lower level you usually have a cash-
out in one strategy, and always in another. And you're always looking
at a worst case scenario--but for good reason. you can't tackle the
fact that better things do happen most of the time when progressing,
and more great things occur than terrible ones. We go right on back
to the beginning here: Just because you get overly frustrated at the
fact that you cannot duplicate how i play with your little computer
or even smaller mind, you create a feel-good make-believe scenario.

All Robs' system does is exchange more small session wins for a few
larger losses.

Where did you get THAT from? Is that how you wish it to be?? Here's
my complete results as taken from my site that everyone (IRS
included) is allowed to see. Your exchange theory is far and away
nowhere near what you say it is.

Results as of: August 17, 2004
  Total Professional Sessions: 229
  Total Pro Winning Sessions: 200
  Total Pro Losing Sessions: 29
  Multi-Play Total Pro Sessions: 10
  Multi-Play Total Pro Winning Sessions: 9
  Multi-Play Total Pro Losing Sessions: 1
  Multi Strike Total Pro Sessions: 3
  Multi Strike Total Pro Winning Sessions: 3
  Multi Strike Total Pro Losing Sessions: 0
  Romp-Thru-Town Total Sessions: 30
  Romp-Thru-Town Winning Sessions: 26
  Romp-Thru-Town Losing Sessions: 4
  Romp-Thru-Town Adv Total Sessions: 29
  Romp-Thru-Town Adv Winning Sessions: 22
  Romp-Thru-Town Adv Losing Sessions: 7
  Overall Average Session Results: +$2,673.00
  Average Loss Per Losing Session: -$3,686.00
  Largest Single Session Win: +$94,890.00
  Largest Single Session Loss: -$33,960.00

Sure, it can work for you if you are lucky enough to

hit RFs (or other big wins) when playing high in the progression.
However, others who play are just as likely to hit the RFs, etc.

when playing at the low levels adn never hit them at high levels. For

them, the losses will greatly exceed what they expect.

Here's another flash for the armchair player/analyst/critic: Hit RF's
and other high winners in the lower levels and you WALK. You're again
mixing this up with your probabllity theories because you haven't any
other way to look at it. And, you don't want it to work.

The payback of the game does not change with a progression. That is

a fact. Martingale like systems such as Robs have been tried for many

years and the casinos are still doing fine.

So who else has tried a 'system' like mine 'for years'?

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#16

> Smart....and true, to your chagrin (and my grin). Is there any
truth to the runor that the Pillsbury Dough Boy made a visit to
Minnesota, and you ate him?

PDB lives just down the block from me and just last week he was
telling me about a little experience he had. Seems this runt from

AZ was wandering around the casinos in MN looking for someone. This
runt said the guy he was looking for was making him look like such an

idiot he wanted to poke him in the eye. Since PDB knew me

personally, he told the runt where he could find me. PBD even offered
to set up a meeting. According to PDB, the runt actually wet his
pants at this time and went running away. PDB indicated it was the
best laugh he'd had in months.

You're supposed to try and be a little humorous. No wonder you don't
write for anything other than a mutation of vpfree.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#17

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

So
> > why can't RS recommend a system that benefits from the 95%
> > probability of hitting one or more quads in 1,200 hands?
>
> Does a single quad guarantee a winning session every time? No,

not

> even close. Look at the total payback % for each type of winner.
For example, in bonus poker the payback below quads is around 85%.

And this is supposed to mean something in a short-term session?

Yes, are you brain dead? It means you may already be down more
credits than the quad is worth.

I'll

repeat what our friend here said: "You can't have it both ways."
Either accept the fact that anything can happen at anytime when you
play for short-term goals having nothing to do with waaay out there
somewhere, or tell the guy you just don't understand.

Wong again Princess, you CAN have it both ways. You can set whatever
short goals you want while still playing positive games correctly. I
believe that is BOTH ways and shows beyond any doubt that "you just
don't understand".

It's
> even lower in the high variance games. As I mentioned before,

many

of the quads will just keep you even. Some won't even do that.

Let's

say you get one of the quads at the first level and you lose

anyway.

What happens to your 95% figure then?

Again, you confuse the issue with your math model nonsense. Here's
your answer, and I'm the one you should be asking unless you are
afraid to. When you get a quad at lower level you usually have a

cash-

out in one strategy, and always in another.

Sure, Princess ... Now click your heels together 3 times ...

Results as of: August 17, 2004 (snip)

Once again, Princess, your individual results mean NOTHING (other
than you've been lucky).

Sure, it can work for you if you are lucky enough to
> hit RFs (or other big wins) when playing high in the progression.
> However, others who play are just as likely to hit the RFs, etc.
when playing at the low levels adn never hit them at high levels.

For

> them, the losses will greatly exceed what they expect.

Here's another flash for the armchair player/analyst/critic: Hit

RF's

and other high winners in the lower levels and you WALK.

I know, Princess, the VP fairy magically resets your luck the next
time you play. That way you don't need to worry about ever having bad
luck. Or, wait, maybe the Princess really is the VP fairy.

You're again
mixing this up with your probabllity theories because you haven't

any

other way to look at it. And, you don't want it to work.

No mixing required. There is only one theory. The Princess system is
a scam.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#18

All Robs' system does is exchange more small session wins for a few
larger losses. Sure, it can work for you if you are lucky enough to
hit RFs (or other big wins) when playing high in the progression.
However, others who play are just as likely to hit the RFs, etc.

when

playing at the low levels adn never hit them at high levels. For
them, the losses will greatly exceed what they expect.

The payback of the game does not change with a progression. That is

a

fact. Martingale like systems such as Robs have been tried for many
years and the casinos are still doing fine.

Dick

It is not true that you can win on a Singer system session only by
just hitting a Royal. In his systems he goes up in volatility and
denomination, and he has prescriptions to quit at a certain profit
goal. This implies that quads on one of those games with Bs or Ds on
their names in the higher denomination can make you win.

I just made a quick 20 trials of 1,200 hands each on computer play in
Frugal on a low paying 97% return game. I would not dance on one foot
because of the results, since it has been my experience that I do
much better in WinPoker and Frugal than at the casinos. You once
remarked something like, "if it is random, that's ridiculous", but it
is just an observation after having played reasonably many hands at
both home and casinos. I almost always win at home and this is not
always true in casinos, alas! Anyway, in these simulations I got 0
quads in 1 trial; 1 quad in 1 trial; 2 quads in 4 trials; 3 quads in
2 trials; 4 quads in 5 trials; 5 quads in 5 trials; 6 quads in 1
trial and, believe it or not, in one of the trials I got 10 quads.
Of the twenty trials, I ended up winning credits in 8, losing credits
in 12. I hit no Royals in the twenty trials, which is not unusual
since the total number of hands played were 24,000.

I can roughly determine how the results would have been if, with the
same number of quads appearing at the same places, I had played those
trials of 1,200 hands with a Singer progressive system on machines
going up in volatility and denomination. Doing this, I have concluded
I would have lost in two of those trials. One of the losing trials
would have been the one with zero quads; on this in a Singer system I
would have gone up in denomination and those 1,410 credits lost would
have represented a lot of change had I kept playing. The other losing
trial would have been one of the ones where I had two quads. On that
I had two quads at the start, and then I lost the credits on them,
and afterwards lost 800 credits more. Since I would have gone up in
denomination that would have represented a great loss.

I think it is not too bad to have 18 winning sessions instead of 8,
and this with no Royals. I must comment that the session with the ten
quads –those quads were distributed more or less uniformly on the
1,200 hands- would have been played at the same denomination and thus
it would not have been the biggest winning session; nonetheless, it
would have been a winning session on the Singer method since those
quads would have gathered the `goal profit'.

The danger with a Singer session is in the psychology of the gambler.
Some gamblers are stubborn and will be determined to get a quad no
matter what. This can be suicide when goddess Fortuna decides that
there will be no quads for thirteen hours, as it has been reported to
happen by some posters elsewhere. People should remember there are no
guarantees of winning at any game of chance. As I said before,
advantage play has a sadder risk, and that is that after a lifetime
of punishing your lungs on a smoky uncomfortable casino, you may end
up with a pile of cash gone, and a garage full of blenders that
represent a dime on the dollar of the capital lost.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#19

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "superquadfullhousroyalistic"
<erchalb@c...> wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> All Robs' system does is exchange more small session wins for a

few

> larger losses. Sure, it can work for you if you are lucky enough

to

> hit RFs (or other big wins) when playing high in the progression.
> However, others who play are just as likely to hit the RFs, etc.
when
> playing at the low levels adn never hit them at high levels. For
> them, the losses will greatly exceed what they expect.
>
> The payback of the game does not change with a progression. That

is

a
> fact. Martingale like systems such as Robs have been tried for

many

> years and the casinos are still doing fine.
>
> Dick

It is not true that you can win on a Singer system session only by
just hitting a Royal.

That's why I added "(or other big wins)".

In his systems he goes up in volatility and
denomination, and he has prescriptions to quit at a certain profit
goal. This implies that quads on one of those games with Bs or Ds

on

their names in the higher denomination can make you win.

Yes they can, but they don't guarantee it (which is what I stated).
250 credits for a quad is less than the 400 credits you indicated
were played at each level.

I just made a quick 20 trials of 1,200 hands each on computer play

in

Frugal on a low paying 97% return game. I would not dance on one

foot

because of the results, since it has been my experience that I do
much better in WinPoker and Frugal than at the casinos. You once
remarked something like, "if it is random, that's ridiculous",

No, I didn't say that in this context. I don't know about FVP but I
believe the winpoker PRNG does tend to work differently. His method
does not have the PRNG running continuously so all hands are
predeterimined once you start winpoker. Perfectly valid for
winpokers' goals, but not the same as in a casino.

but it
is just an observation after having played reasonably many hands at
both home and casinos. I almost always win at home and this is not
always true in casinos, alas! Anyway, in these simulations I got 0
quads in 1 trial; 1 quad in 1 trial; 2 quads in 4 trials; 3 quads

in

2 trials; 4 quads in 5 trials; 5 quads in 5 trials; 6 quads in 1
trial and, believe it or not, in one of the trials I got 10 quads.
Of the twenty trials, I ended up winning credits in 8, losing

credits

in 12. I hit no Royals in the twenty trials, which is not unusual
since the total number of hands played were 24,000.

I can roughly determine how the results would have been if, with

the

same number of quads appearing at the same places, I had played

those

trials of 1,200 hands with a Singer progressive system on machines
going up in volatility and denomination. Doing this, I have

concluded

I would have lost in two of those trials. One of the losing trials
would have been the one with zero quads; on this in a Singer system

I

would have gone up in denomination and those 1,410 credits lost

would

have represented a lot of change had I kept playing. The other

losing

trial would have been one of the ones where I had two quads. On

that

I had two quads at the start, and then I lost the credits on them,
and afterwards lost 800 credits more. Since I would have gone up in
denomination that would have represented a great loss.

I think it is not too bad to have 18 winning sessions instead of 8,
and this with no Royals. I must comment that the session with the

ten

quads –those quads were distributed more or less uniformly on the
1,200 hands- would have been played at the same denomination and

thus

it would not have been the biggest winning session; nonetheless, it
would have been a winning session on the Singer method since those
quads would have gathered the `goal profit'.

Like I said, more session wins counterbalanced by a few large losses.

The danger with a Singer session is in the psychology of the

gambler.

That is also true.

Some gamblers are stubborn and will be determined to get a quad no
matter what. This can be suicide when goddess Fortuna decides that
there will be no quads for thirteen hours, as it has been reported

to

happen by some posters elsewhere. People should remember there are

no

guarantees of winning at any game of chance. As I said before,
advantage play has a sadder risk, and that is that after a lifetime
of punishing your lungs on a smoky uncomfortable casino, you may

end

up with a pile of cash gone, and a garage full of blenders that
represent a dime on the dollar of the capital lost.

And, as I said before, advantage play does require you to play any
more often or any where you don't want to. This is what Rob wants you
think and has nothing to do with reality.

#20

> And this is supposed to mean something in a short-term session?

Yes, are you brain dead? It means you may already be down more
credits than the quad is worth.

And most of the time it isn't, or other times a specal quad is hit
that automatically recovers everything and more. Try to allow your
pea brain to see the entire scenario rather than just the negative
part your theories want to be true all the time.

Wong again Princess, you CAN have it both ways. You can set

whatever short goals you want while still playing positive games
correctly. I believe that is BOTH ways and shows beyond any doubt
that "you just don't understand".

You mean "YOU" want to have it both ways, but you are 100% incorrect
again. You keep blabbing that it's possible to win more than you lose
in the 'short-term', but then you go on to mess up your spark of
common sense by making believe that "if it's a positive game you will
win, and if it's a negative game you will lose' rhetoric. THAT's what
wanting it both ways is, and THAT's why you understand little in the
area of what constitutes successful video poker play.

> Again, you confuse the issue with your math model nonsense.

Here's your answer, and I'm the one you should be asking unless you
are afraid to. When you get a quad at lower level you usually have a

cash-out in one strategy, and always in another.

Sure, Princess ... Now click your heels together 3 times ...

From someone who doesn't know how I play and can only theorize, I'd
say that was a fairly clear answer of "I don't understand".

Once again, Princess, your individual results mean NOTHING (other
than you've been lucky).

No, one thing they do is irritate you, and that's worth the time.
Every bit of it.

> Here's another flash for the armchair player/analyst/critic: Hit
RF's and other high winners in the lower levels and you WALK.

I know, Princess, the VP fairy magically resets your luck the next
time you play. That way you don't need to worry about ever having

bad luck. Or, wait, maybe the Princess really is the VP fairy.

Whatever you call it, measure that up against your long losing
streaks, and when you Finally hit that specail quad, you're always
thinking of me being 4 levels higher that where you started, cashing
out and taking the cash home AGAIN while you sit and count your ATM
slips.

No mixing required. There is only one theory. The Princess system

is a scam.

And your boring long-term theory is a wasted dream for all but the
very luckiest.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote: