Scoreboard

[cddenver]

Well, yes, SM.  I tried working that 97.34% number a couple of different ways to see where it came from but had no success.   It was probably  calculated using somewhat different session info than what was posted, say a session or two swapped out here and there involving different numbers of hands.  It could happen to anyone. 

[rolanddude]

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.c ... 24743458My bad...it was 3 kickers and it was a typo...just click the link above to see the picture of the screen.  Or just continue to deny it!CD if you think I used bad info in my sessions ...  try it for yourself!  Nothing swapped...Nothing fudged...matter of fact it pained me to actually put down winning sessions in the AP columns.  Doesn't change the fact that they were ALL losing bets in the long run...11,000+ hands (X5)  Oh, for the "Exact" math bums here...it was 11,424 deals playing 5 hands per deal,  total of 57120 hand results...so go ahead and make a case for anything you want...even a 6 100ths of a percent error on the payback ( I typed exactly what Dancer's VPFW said it was. Maybe HIS program has flaws...It couldn't though he's a MATH genius and wouldn't put out a program with bugs...Oh, but I've already upgraded it free a couple of times because of some issues with a repeating rng, same hands being dealt over and over and other things like that...hmmmmm)...Advantage Play still LOST alot of money/credits and I didn't.  You could say I'm beating him ON his own game...heheThe weirdest thing about these sessions...everything else aside please for one minute...After completing the 10th session, I clicked on "Overall Play" and went to the "coins" tab...There it showed a LOSS of 7780 coins for all of my play...So someone tell me how I am showing a PROFIT of $2,665.50...Weird....must be an anomally or something...maybe magic...surely there must be a mathematical explanation of this...Anyone?All of these 10 sessions were played WITHOUT
special plays.  My play accuracy according to Dancer's own simulator
was over 99% I had 88 errors in the 11424 hands...most of the 88 errors
were perfect plays but the simulator was set for "play against
strategy" plays, thus they were counted as errors.  So even playing
according to Dancer's "all figured out" way through all the hands my
column totals speak for themselves.  They are not the result of some RF
within 5 hands blind lucky streak or whatever you are trying to imply. 
And EDC...it was Tedlark who called me out for "taking shortcuts" in my
life being the reason I am playing VP this way.  I hate shortcuts...I
love productiveness!!!!EDC...yeah I guess there must be some secret organization of you "Perfect Players" out there that no one...not even the casinos...knows about.  You guys are cleaning their clocks...They will probably ban VP machines soon because you guys are too much for them to handle...Joe

[Eduardo]

I cannot believe you are posting pictures of a VPW screen and thinking they will convince anyone of anything at all about strategy. Ooooh. Hit a kicker. Wow.  That took some real skill there! This has gotten ridiculous.

[rolanddude]

Eduardo,CD called me out...and suggested that I am making things up....!I only argue with proof!  Not unfounded accusations!

[Eduardo]

Hey guys I have an amazing new strategy on 100 play.
 
First hold the second card only. Then hold the 3rd and 5th cards.
 
Then increase your best to a dollar, play 3 hands, then reduce your bet to a quarter and deal one more hand.
 
I have made 7 trillion dollars in the past week in casinos.
 
You will get a dealt royal 37% of the time. I know it sounds crazy but here is the PROOF!
 

I ha

[rolanddude]

how childish!!No one ever said you didn't do it Eduardo.  I am all but called a liar on this site.  CD didn't believe me so I showed him.  Btw, did you ever go and read the brochure I posted on the other thread a couple minutes ago...you might want to...OR you might not once you start...it kind of exposes a little racket they've got going....wouldn't you say?

[Eduardo]

Your method has already been statistically proven to give no advantage whatsoever, yet you still insist on posting individual session results that offer nothing to a reasonable analysis. That is just as childish as me claiming I have a great strategy because I happened to hit a dealt royal. It happens.

[rolanddude]

Well Ed,At least I have a repeatable method with fewer steps than yours.  Good luck buddy.

[cddenver]

No one ever said you didn't do it Eduardo.  I am all but called a liar on this site.  CD didn't believe me so I showed him. 

 
If there is an error in that particular calculation in VPFW then I'll accept that as the reason for the discrepancy, you didn't need to give the long harangue.  Good grief.
 
I never questioned whether you actually hit those quads.  I didn't look at the links you posted, as I assumed you wouldn't claim to have screen shots of VPFW winners that you didn't actually have.  Screen shots say nothing about nothing, other than you hit a nice jackpot at a particular point in time.  I've got one from the site a few months ago where I was dealt quad 2's in 5-play, and drew a kicker on every line.
 
I haven't set up a sheet to do this new multiline approach and I don't plan on doing so since the whole issue has been beaten to death.  But I have mechanized my single line ARTT sheet to do multiple sessions at once, and found some startling information:
 
          The more you play ARTT, the more dollars you lose!   
 
Much more so than what we've been calling AP.  I just got done running 10 sets of 10 sessions.  If I were to take your side, I could post the details on a favorable set of 10 sessions - had one set of 10 sessions with net ARTT $'s of $1,484.  That's not even the best set of results for ARTT.  If I wanted to be mean, I could post details on an unfavorable set of 10 sessions.  But when I look at the bigger picture - 10 consecutive sets of 10 consecutive sessions each, with all sessions played being included in the totals - ARTT ends up at -$7,886, AP at $-578.  If I were to put the $ results from each consecutive set of these consecutive sessions on a graph, you'd see a general downward trend interrupted now and again with an up spike, then trending down again.   That would continue if I ran another 10 sets...or 50...or 100, with the overall lost $'s increasing as total play goes up.
 
My point is that the business of posting results from one set of 10 sessions might impress the novice player or the naturally gullible but no one else, whether you're talking about single line play or a multiline approach.
 
As I said, the numbers I posted were with single line play.  You'll see the same with your multiline approach as you continue your play.  But you'd have us believe the opposite - that while every 10 consecutive sessions of your multiline approach would have different $ results, the general trend would be upwards, with a few valleys (losing) mixed in.   Ain't so.   You don't have near enough consecutive sessions to be making conclusions.  Continue your new multiline approach, and keep us posted. 
 
 

[marlo]

Hey guys .... this is suppose to be fun