Offer to Fa La La La La.... La la la la: Results (5th card flip)

[cddenver]

I wasn't defending my poker play with weather Delora...I was just giving my opinion on computer sims, expectation sciences, and predictions all based upon mathematical calculations like the regs here so adamantly bow to...Poker is luck...

 
RD, you spent quite a bit of time putting your ARTT simulations together and defending them here, so you must believe they reflect reality to some degree.  The analogy to weather simulations doesn't make any sense - apples vs. oranges.

[rolanddude]

I was chemo'd up cd and had nothing better to do...I did all my sims with live practice play...not computer sims.  I was able to actually learn when it was worth the gamble to move up and back down in denom by playing so much during those 6 months I was off from work.  You really do develop a sense of when a bad streak has gone too long and also when a good streak has done it's thing.  Again, a sense of timing and some common sense principles are an important and much too often overlooked aspect of this game.

[cddenver]

I was chemo'd up cd and had nothing better to do...

I did all my sims with live practice play...not computer sims. 
 
I'd forgotten that.  My apologies!

[rolanddude]

The analogy to weather was not supposed to be about "the weather", cd.It is just one of a 1000 examples of stats and data collections gathered to form a hypothesis and make a prediction based on pc sims that take into account many variables only to be slightly to horribly wrong on every given event.   After thousands of these events, an average can be adopted and mathematically accepted by the population as a "standard" or "rule of thumb" .  All of this happens even though the individual prediction for each event was NEVER perfect.This is exactly how the "expectation" of any game of chance is formulated.  Now are you going to play with the assumption that the math will work out for you?  Or, will you accept that the math you make your decisions based upon is an average of many thousand imperfect predictions?

[New2vp]

New,Correct me if I am wrong on the following...A 3 oak happens in JoB, BP, and DDB roughly every 13 hands according to the math.  If I have played any amount over 13 hands without a 3 oak or higher...Am I due one based on the math? 
These are really softball questions that you are tossing me.  Nevertheless, I am going to answer them in the spirit that you are really attempting to learn something that you don't already know.  If the probability of getting trips is 1/13 and you go 13 hands in a row without trips, the probability of getting trips on the next hand is....you guessed it....1/13.  If you already had 3 trips in a row in the last 3 hands, the probability of trips on the next hand is....1/13 again.No magic, that's what independence means.  No one with an understanding of independent events believes there is a higher probability  of trips because the last hand was a loser or was a royal flush.  But if you want to appeal to people that can be made to believe otherwise, you may want to peddle those wares elsewhere.  Here, you will likely be challenged every time this mistaken conjecture is made.Summary:  The probability of a result of trips or better on the next hand does not change because of 1 losing hand in a row, 2 losing hands in a row, or 13 losing hands in a row.  Please tell me that you already knew that.Both of your
scenarios above are senseless to your math arguement.  Scenario one
infers that you want to play higher denoms to catch up to me because I
started with $1000 more than you even though we would both not let
ourselves lose over $2000....Wha?
What math argument are you talking about?  Or is this just that lead-in catchall statement that you/r mentor likes to make when he says the math guys have it all wrong.  I made no math argument here (OK, I subtracted $2000 from $3000 to say that I had $1000 less than you, but that's really not much math; here I used logic much more than math.)  If scenario 1 was not explained simply enough for you, I apologize.  I simply included an assumption that you had more money than me.  I presumed that you and others would understand that you having more money in your pocket would not cause us to play differently if we were playing identical machines with identical rational strategies.  In general, I would not know how much money you had in your pocket, so it could hardly influence my strategy.  If we jointly agreed on what strategy was best for play (level betting or ARTT, whatever we agreed to) and played that strategy, although our actual results would likely be different, the expectations of money won or lost would be the same...and because you started with $1000 more, you would be expected to end with $1000 more.But I would NOT start out in scenario 1 betting any more than you if we agreed to the same strategy.  We would start out with the same strategy and the same denomination in our betting.Is that so complex?  You just had more money and we played by the same agreed upon strategy.  Our starting bets would be the same.
Scenario 2 makes a little more sense
in that you admit that bad luck caused you to lose more than me...But
here is where you don't seem to get it...What happened on your steady
journey down?  Was there a time when you could have capitalized on a
short good run after a long bad one?  Would you have lost less if only
you were aware of certain opportunities?

No, I get it alright.  You appear as if you don't understand.  The loss of $1000 occurred and it could have occurred with either type of strategy, level betting or ARTT.  To make it simpler to understand, let's presume that despite using ARTT, my net results at some point were a loss of $1000 while over the same period you had broken even.  That's possible under ARTT, right?What you don't seem to get is that at that moment in the session in scenario 2, we have identical conditions to what we started with in Scenario 1:  You would have $3000 and I would have $2000.  In Scenario 1, if we were both using ARTT, the first hand would see me betting the same amount as you.  But in scenario 2, when I had $2000 and you had $3000, ARTT would say that I need to be betting more than you.That is the inconsistency.  Identical dollars in our pocket in both scenarios but ARTT comes up with different betting schemes.  So ARTT is not consistent.Again, I apologize if that was not clear.  Sometimes, I don't always account for the prejudices, biases, or preconceived notions in my audience that must be overcome before learning can take place.Different teaching methods are required for different individuals.

Now, who thinks it is a
dumb idea in my scenario above that after 26 hands of betting quarters
with nothing more than pairs and two pairs to show for that now I jump
up to the $2 denom (8 times higher than quarters) on the same machine
and play for a while.  I do this if there has not been an out of the
ordinary amount of pairs and two pairs to keep me relatively even.  In
other words,  I use common sense to decide if I change my bet.  The
conditions have to be right and all signs need to point in that
direction. 


Well, I think it is not a good idea, but you are welcome to your beliefs.  You say you use common sense to decide when to change your bet; that's seems to me to be inconsistent with your previous posts because your earlier writings were espousing strategies that Fa La La La La.... La la la la taught you.  In fact I would expect that without your Fa La La La La.... La la la la meetings you would not be posting here.Certainly the examples of hands coming in specific orders and the simulations that you wrote about are not examples of common sense:  knowledge that the general population holds.  Exploring the term, "common sense" is sometimes considered to be what most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on study or research or knowledge of specialists in a field.  Thus "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people allegedly have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have.
Whatever definition one uses, identifying particular items of knowledge as "common sense" becomes difficult.In particular, if you believe that the betting theory that you use can be inferred via common sense, people could use their own general knowledge without actually employing a particular strategy in a casino or on practice software before they decided to accept or reject the theory.  So, if you claim to be using only common sense in making your decision, you really should not chastise others for not believing your strategy just because they haven't tried it.  If your theory can be arrived at by common sense, by definition, it does not require inordinate study, research, or simulation.Please note that I do NOT believe that most sound video poker strategies are the result of simple common sense.  There are plenty of things that do not seem right at first blush, but after study or research turn out to be correct.In any case, not employing research to modify common sense makes it very difficult to develop precise strategies that multiple people can agree are best.  So although common sense may seem to be appealing at first, it should not generally be the sole basis on which to formulate strategy.Education allows us to rise above the "common sense" that most people have without study; it frequently allows us to make better decisions.It's hard to argue with your statement that "conditions have to be right and all signs need to point in that
direction," but that is because it is equally hard for others to agree with what exactly that means.  Strategy does mean a plan of what to do under all conditions, but just saying that offers no helpful direction.But to each his own.  If you like your form of common sense theories, good luck to you.  But it's sort of foolish to expect to have others agree with you when you demean strategies and methodologies that they chosen when using their own subjective common sense, especially when their approach to video poker has been improved by study, research, or...dare I say it...an understanding of mathematics and statistics.I know that it is doubtful that anything I wrote here caused that light bulb to go off.  You have a vested interest or at least pride in what you have already laid out as your views.  If these examples do not enlighten you, then I may be reticent to waste time to make further attempts to help you; I'll just focus on helping others.Again, good luck with your methods.  Who knows?  Maybe you are a better practitioner than you are a teacher.  And in a casino, that and luck is all that matters.  I do agree with you that luck is a huge component and more than likely trumps everything that both you and I have written about.Although I'll be interested in what you have to say, maybe we should leave it at that.

[EDC1977]

May I further add that most (not all) weather reports are based on PC sims from NOAA and current conditions given each city. Watch your local news, then watch a forecast from the weather channel and compare the two. I don't know where the weather channel gets their stats and models but they're more accurate than most local news channels. Sorry but the only real math is in given percentages of precipitation possibility. BTW, how does one "know" when that hot or cold streak is done or due to hit. Shadow pretty much nailed it 100% when he said "machines don't get hot or cold, players do." Why is that so difficult to understand? One can never "know" when the machine is due to hit, progressive or level-betting, only that you have a general idea of ER and payback percentages. If you get up and move to another machine, the chances of you hitting don't change with machines. Why should your betting strategy? I'd hate to hit a short coin RF because some theory told me to.

[shadowman]

Not many of you have given it a try I see.  The math proves it wrong you say.  Doesn't the math prove everything about winning at VP wrong?  Casinos sure hope so.  The question isn't whether the math can prove something that, by design, is not supposed to be beaten.  The question is can I somehow change the anticipated result by using timely bet variances.  After all...you math guys should know that if (for example) you lose or push 10 or more hands in a row that according to "math" you will probably hit a 3 to 1 or higher winner sooner rather than later....Math tells us that you will NEVER continue to play without that occasional trip, straight, flush, etc...
 
new2vp has already answered these but I think these misconceptions need to be addressed as often as possible. The math ONLY provides knowledge of the future. It has nothing to do with the past. If you lose 10 hands in a row that is in the past and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with future probabilities. Dude, you should make at least a small effort to understand what you are talking about.

It only makes sense that after a horrid 10+ hand losing streak that you increase your bet so that a modest hit gets you back to scratch or better...DUH   You don't have to use the systems verbatim...It was suggested to me to just play and be extremely aware of what was going on with every hand.   Yes, I know that one result does not guarantee another different result such as the ol' roulette tower BS.  I do know however that it is very hard to play 20 hands in VP without a trip or higher win!!!  The Math dictates that every so many hands it HAS to happen on average...If you can't rely on the term "on average" then you can throw away ALL MATH!!!   Use your heads...timing is everything!!!  It doesn't take thousands of hands per day to capitalize either.  It doesn't take hours of chasing something close to ER.   Instead of always trying to use math to disprove a playing method it might be advisable to try and use math to improve your playing method!
 
Pure nonsense, but exactly the kind of nonsense that those who are unfamiliar with math can be led to believe by a con man.

I don't know how much more reasonable I can explain it to everyone...

If you haven't played this or similar methods then you have no real life examples to draw from.  Only theories and useless BS.
 
This is so very humorous. This sounds EXACTLY like something Fa La La La La.... La la la la would say. Co-incidence?
 
Now back to the facts ... I have played close to 10 million hands in "real life" so I think I speak from more experience than most. I've gone over 200K hands without a RF, over 4K hands without a quad, and I've had RFs 5 minutes apart and back-back quads many times. This is how randomness plays out. It does NOT play out as your naive statement implies.

  By the way...here in Lady Lake, FL yesterday they predicted that today there would be a 30% chance of rain with 1/10th of an inch or less expected according to all the models, calculations, variations, computer simulations, etc using millions of dollars worth of data gathering equipment...Wow, I had a 7 out of 10 chance of enjoying a rain free day by the pool enjoying a cookout or something.  Boy am I sure glad I ignored the "Math" on this one...It started raining around 9AM this morning and it quit around 6PM with over 1 1/2 inches of rain. 

Using Math/Expected Values, Returns and Results to predict events is just too unpredictable to predict with authority in the short term.  I am sure however, that by using math, 10 years from now some hot shot will be able to formulate that over this ten year stretch of time that rainfall was within an "expected range" for this area.   All the while he will completely ignore the fact that the daily predictions for the same area were askew miserably.  In some cases, such as today, off by 15 times the expected amount.  
 
Once again you show a limited understanding of what is being discussed. Computer simulations of VP are very simple programs that rely on the randomness of the hands. They simply play out millions of hands and see what happens.
 
Weather forecasts do not deal with randomness. They deal with a set of initial conditions and attempt to track where those conditions will lead based on HISTORIC records of events similar to the initial conditions and the physics of the atmosphere. No randomness at play. Since the initial conditions are just a tiny subset of the real world conditions and our knowledge of what transacts in the atmosphere is not complete, these forecasts are often completely wrong.

The statements you have made show a complete lack of understanding of the world of science and mathematics. I suggest a remedial course in science and mathematics before you continue to make these completely wrong assertions. A old phrase about wasting a mind seems appropo.
 

[faygo]

The percentage given in a weather forecast does not predict the probability of , let's say, 30% chance of rain over an area. The percentage ,instead, refers to a 30% area within the area covered by the forecast that might experience the rain.

[Deloradeuces18]

Video Poker isn't all that different from other games around the casino floor. Whether it's table games or machines, know your odds, look at the pays and place your bet.

What you are talking about here is no different than looking at a craps table for a while and thinking snake eyes is "due" because it hasn't come up in over 50 rolls. Do you really think it's a wise bet to start putting large amounts of money down on it at that point? If it were, it would be no secret.

For every player in a casino there are quirks and habits. Someone might like to always bet a 6 after an 8. Maybe they saw it happen a few times and stuck with it. But if they wrote a book stating that 6's follow 8's and that's the way to win, you can bet it would find opposition.

The man you are talking about here seems to have a hobby of actually criticizing the people who know this game better than anyone else I have seen, as if they don't accurately understand the odds. That is ironic given their obvious study and dedication to the game. And you actually respect this guy?

[oej719]

[]


I everyone. jojo's daddy here. I am just trying to make a living and this forum is making it hard for me to do that. Now that Mr.OEJ has won the vote of me being a con vs. me being everyones BFF. (best friends forever) I just don't feel welcome here anymore. I feel exposed and helpless and lonely. I am now offering 2 for 1 free training leasons. Thats right. The first one is no charge and I will throw the second one free. That is like three for the price of one almost. I will even give a free trail to my free eletter that comes out whenever I feel like doing it, which is whenever this forum gives me something to twist into something that only I am smart enough to grasp. No offense to all the dummies here. Got to go my glass needs a refill and the butler is off today. Peace to all ...............
to be continued............