Double up or not

[DaBurglar]

This thread is three years old....you need to read it from start to finish, all of it, to accurately understand what's being said. I will never do a better job making my points than what I originally posted three years ago, I stand by what I originally said, the experience and data is exactly what I recall. If some of you refuse to believe I used to record large chunks of data back in the day, that's your problem. I've posted both in this thread and elsewhere in the long ago past about how I accomplished this, it's not that difficult if you really want to do it...

The only element I can think to add is, in his enthusiasm to shred, New2Vp calculated I may have lost $15K in the disputed May 2002 to March 2003 period where I kept details of the double up results. I played a fairly even mix back then of nickel (especially downtown Vegas) and quarter games, almost never venturing higher.

[DaBurglar]

Like DaBurglar's claim of running so bad on double up that Excel can't even calculate the odds of it happening on a fair game? And he claimed it happened in Nevada!   

He claimed he only won or pushed on 35% of his attempts in 21,500 trials. FYI, the odds of winning or pushing 39.847% of 21,500 double up attempts on a "fair game" is:

1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's a one with 323 zeros after it. That's as far as Excel will go until they say, "Screw it, it's zero." So I couldn't calculate the odds of only winning or pushing 35%, but it's more unlikely than that number above. You should win or push 52.94% of the time on average.   

I'm sorry you can't believe what I reported, but I just wanted to say to you I have no problem with what you state or the way you state it.... I told you before I think you are the best poster here, and if New2Vp has to talk cynically about someone being "the smartest person in the room" ( whatever the flip that entails) then as I see it you are it.


I'm just curious though why you didn't make this objection three years ago...you posted in this thread back then so obviously you saw my points when I first made them???

[Carcounter]

I remember the Stratosphere having 10/6 JOB and 9/7 JOB. Was there really 10/7 JOB somewhere? Or was it 10/7 Double Bonus?

[New2vp]

It's 2:20 am and I see one person is sitting in the forum waiting for me
to respond to this thread, which I just now read and see New2vp's
effusion of pent up indignation at the way, and matters, I've posted
about the last several years.Can you please briefly and clearly
state what it is you want to debate exactly.....I'm
at a loss what i did or said to you personally to elicit or cause this
in you; After you get past that crap, then we can get to what I think is the
real issue here, both my experiences and stats from 2002-2003 in Nevada. I am not trying to convince anyone else, and I have
explicitly conceded that I have NO definitive proof either way (I never
said the data and info I collected manually back in the day was
definitive proof of ANYTHING, I just based my own personal opinions and
conclusions off of it(, and that like every one else here, this is just
my opinion, based on my experiences and such......What
exactly did I do or say to YOU personally to cause you (especially in
the last several weeks) to suddenly take up the cause to shred me
personally? This thread is three years old....you need to read it from start to
finish, all of it, to accurately understand what's being said. I will
never do a better job making my points than what I originally posted
three years ago, I stand by what I originally said, the experience and
data is exactly what I recall. If some of you refuse to believe I used
to record large chunks of data back in the day, that's your problem.
I've posted both in this thread and elsewhere in the long ago past about
how I accomplished this, it's not that difficult if you really want to
do it...

The only element I can think to add is, in his enthusiasm to shred,
New2Vp calculated I may have lost $15K in the disputed May 2002 to March
2003 period where I kept details of the double up results. I played a
fairly even mix back then of nickel (especially downtown Vegas) and
quarter games, almost never venturing higher.
Good afternoon, DB.  I hope you got some much needed rest.  Wow, up at 2:20 and posting away before 7 am.  Maybe you got some shut-eye in between.All this agitation, twice using the word "shred," the first as in "take
up the cause to shred me personally." I do applaud the idea of your
trying to switch this from being about
your comments on doubling up in Vegas to you being some victim.I have never said that I have contempt or disdain for you.  I refrained when asked what percentage of what you write I believe or I agree with.  I think you will be just fine no matter what those percentages are.  You will see below that I don't really have to write whether I agree or disagree with your words.  I have been simply just connecting several of the things that you have said and letting them stand on their own.  When that is done some may think the story doesn't hang together.  It sort of "shreds" itself from some people's perspective.  For others, who knows?       This is the 2nd time that you have made statements such as these about you being a victim.  It's falling into a pattern.  You feel trapped based on your own postings or my response to them.  The last time you said, "you pulled the same passive agressive [sic] crap in that other thread."  DB, maybe in your angst or your focus on yourself, your memory does not allow you to realize that you engaged me not the other way around, not once, not twice, but now three times in the last month.  I'm not aware of other direct confrontations, but you've been involved in your fair share of them and you've been around a while.  If you can dig up others, maybe I can do some recall.  Of the ones I'm aware, the first started with a thread called "Server Base" in the Video Poker Strategy category in mid February of this year.My alleged first transgression against you?  I hope you go back and check it out.  Evidently it was directing this opening line to another poster, not you:  "I'm sorry to hear about your bad luck ... or at least your poor
experiences.  How did you catch on to the realization that something fishy
(or ratty) [sic] going on as opposed to you just having a down year on
legitimately random games?"  Again, remembering that my post was directed to someone else, you came back with:why it is people simply can no longer be allowed to just come on here
and VENT and express their own, uniquely personal experiences ... without a select
number of someones immediately pouncing on them and emphatically
grilling them for PROOF that their OPINION is indeed CORRECT?I did leave out some of your words via the ellipsis to get to the point more quickly.  My post that was evidently offensive to you went on for 124 words, with none of them to you or about you.  Your rant about how offensive my post was encompassed 512 words.  Why so many?  Well, it was filled with faulty inferences and conclusions which I later debunked.  The thread went back and forth as I tried to answer your endless questions and finally ended when I congratulated you on personal growth (since you were coming to the defense of another poster rather than attacking another poster for a change, but of course my congratulations were tongue in cheek, because you were only defending the other poster so you could attack my post or me).  Nevertheless, I let you have the last word.  I invite you (or anyone else) to go back through that and correct your memory if you count that in the evidence that I'm intent on "shredding" you.I will not revisit the 2nd topic except to say that I do not want to have to go back and forth again with you here so often that Webman feels it's necessary to issue a mild reprimand as he did in that case, but I'm fine with anyone going through that one as well.Now, let's get back to doubling up.  You asked Vman why he didn't object to this post 3 years ago.  I can guess it was so that he didn't have to engage in this ridiculous back and forth.  The poster Case did object back then and we can see how courteous you were to him.You also state that, "I am not trying to convince anyone else ... I never
said the data and info I collected manually back in the day was
definitive proof of ANYTHING."  It is good that you are no longer trying to convince anyone else, because I don't think many would be convinced at this point.  It would be interesting to understand if you were not providing this as evidence against a fair game, what your implication was.  Your data (if it was collected, accurately, randomly, fairly, and truly) by itself says that you were definitely being cheated.  The conclusion from that data is that there was a zero percent chance that the machines you were playing were offering a fair game.  If you didn't realize this, I am a little surprised.  I think Vman pointed that out fairly emphatically.  Clearly, it would have been impossible for you to be getting those results unless the Vegas site(s) where you were recording them was(were) breaking the law.You say you were playing nickels for a good portion of the time. But it really doesn't matter whether you were playing nickels, quarters, pennies, yen, or pesos.  When doubling up on over 95% of your winning outcomes facing more than a 30 to 35% house edge for years at a time, it is impossible over that many trials to win any money at all.  And remember that there was a 2- or 3-year  period that you didn't record, plus your additional claim that your overall win percentage was even lower than the stretch that you recorded!That's a lot of detail that doesn't jive well with a successful run out in Vegas.I used to consistently hit "YES" on double up for any Jacks or better, 2
pair, 3 of a kind, Straight or flush when playing video poker;   I
played this way from about 1996 thru 1998, then I stopped using it for a
while, then started using it again in 2002 thru 2004, then reduced to
only sporadic usage.I used to keep detailed and copious records of my play back then, and I
can confidently state that my success rate at hitting double up
functions on the games I played up through 2004/2005 was around
33%.......no where near 50%, and it goes beyond this mere statistical
summary/average:     During one stretch from May 2002 thru MArch of
2003, I played a total 21,500 hands that involved me hitting the double
up feature ...during this stretch my success was a little higher than my
average (I won or tied about 35% of the time), but amongst the 65%
hands that I lost, almost 60% of those were hands that I either hand NO
chance of winning or drawing (meaning ALL the cards amongst the four
choices were losers), and about 10% ONLY a chance of a draw (whereby at
least ONE of the four was a "draw").The bolded colored font is another case of interesting information.  It is not unusual for a high percentage of your losses to be when all four of your choices are losing cards, but I agree that 60% is too high.  For example, it would not be unusual to observe something like losing 86% of the time when the video poker machine deals itself a Queen, King, or Ace.  It should also not surprise anyone if more than half of their losses end up being against a face card or ace.  In a fair game, 17% of the time you will get four losing choices.  It is not fun when that happens, but as Minn. Fatz explained, sometimes the cards work the other way and 17% of the time you have four winning choices.  And among all the times you lose in a fair double-up game, 36% of the time you will have had no winning or tying card to choose.  This 36% is what you would have observed in a fair game rather than the 60% fraction.  So how would this happen?  The casino is cheating, right?  Now assume we have an unscrupulous casino owner that directs his programmer to bias the double-up game to get more revenue from doubling up.  If you were the programmer, would you deal more situations in which all the cards were losers to make it easier for anyone to see that the game is not working correctly and unfairly beating them up?  Beating them so badly, so often giving you no chance at all to win?  Or would you wait until the player picked a card, then turn it into a loser and turn at least a couple of the others into winners?  Which scenario would be more likely to entice a player into playing this crooked game longer?  Which scenario would the casino pick to improve revenue?  Which method would have tipped you off sooner while you were recording data?I agree that I used repetition of "He's so smart that..." to drive home a point.  It was to help others in an emphatic way to understand the connections between all those statements and claims.  Let's see what happens when we remove them.  1. DaBurglar is a smart guy.2. He was able to conduct a statistical test to
determine that the double up feature was clearly not a fair game in Las
Vegas and find that 65% of the time (or more) he lost.3.  He used to consistently hit "YES" on double up for any Jacks or better, 2
pair, 3 of a kind, Straight or flush when playing video poker.4.  He played this way from about 1996 thru 1998, then  started using it again in 2002 thru 2004.5.  He was a successful player in Vegas, one of the things that caused him to question the authenticity of randomness in Atlantic City.6.  Even in the face of knowing that the double-up feature was eating him alive, he kept playing, at least some of the time.7.  He likes to warn and post about the possibility and frequency of video poker rigging, both through a higher percentage of non-winning hands and a higher percentage.8.  He took the time not only to record winners and losers, but also to track how many of the cards not selected would have won, lost, and drawn for 21,500 winning hands.9.  He continued to sacrifice money, sometimes nickels, sometimes 30 quarters at a time to continue his quest to record results.  And continued to play double-up sometimes in Atlantic City, even though he doubts the randomness of the RNGs there.10.  He adamantly maintains that all these things happened and that he has been accurate and truthful in his depictions.If this were a true/false test how would you answer?  Ten trues?Now, do you think that other people can believe that all 1 thru 10 can be true at the same time?  Is it somehow more believable without the "He's so smart's"?  Would it be more believable if I were nicer in how I strung these statements together?What's the big deal from your perspective?  I guess people lie sometimes.  They stretch the truth, embroider a little, make themselves out to be a bit more of a hero in a story than they were, or they slant the facts just a little to make it easier to support their beliefs. Hey, if someone gets caught in a little .. let's say, "misremembering" ... the world won't end.  I don't think the forum rules require 100% honesty anywhere.  I'm sure you'll figure out a way to carry on.  And I don't expect that you will change any of your claims one bit.  That's not a realistic goal.  It may not be a realistic goal for you to get others to believe that all 10 of those points are true simultaneously either.  It does surprise me a little that you seem to care.  No doubt a couple will post in your favor.  Maybe then you will feel better. Good luck on your response.  I am not planning on carrying on this debate indefinitely.  And I'm more likely to answer a question on the topic of doubling up than on the topic of whether I like you or I was mean to you.  And who knows?  Maybe I'll give you the last word again.

[Vman96]

[QUOTE=Vman96] Like DaBurglar's claim of running so bad on double up that Excel can't even calculate the odds of it happening on a fair game? And he claimed it happened in Nevada!   

He claimed he only won or pushed on 35% of his attempts in 21,500 trials. FYI, the odds of winning or pushing 39.847% of 21,500 double up attempts on a "fair game" is:

1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's a one with 323 zeros after it. That's as far as Excel will go until they say, "Screw it, it's zero." So I couldn't calculate the odds of only winning or pushing 35%, but it's more unlikely than that number above. You should win or push 52.94% of the time on average.   

I'm sorry you can't believe what I reported, but I just wanted to say to you I have no problem with what you state or the way you state it.... I told you before I think you are the best poster here, and if New2Vp has to talk cynically about someone being "the smartest person in the room" ( whatever the flip that entails) then as I see it you are it.


I'm just curious though why you didn't make this objection three years ago...you posted in this thread back then so obviously you saw my points when I first made them???[/QUOTE]

To be honest, I probably tried to skim read posts and glossed over the key details the first time. I'm very bad for not reading every post very closely and I admit it. I should have brought it up back then instead of now. But I think I would have brought it up if I noticed those results. It is virtually impossible to get those results in a fair game.

[billryan]

   DB made one simple mistake.
Had he posted this in the Recreational Section, his post would be considered 100 percent accurate as the denizens of those depths simply don't believe in math.
Make an outrageous statement here, you'll get called for it. Go to the recreational forum and non-mathematical assumptions are rewarded.   

[DaBurglar]

1. DaBurglar is a smart guy.2. He was able to conduct a statistical test to
determine that the double up feature was clearly not a fair game in Las
Vegas and find that 65% of the time (or more) he lost.3.  He used to consistently hit "YES" on double up for any Jacks or better, 2
pair, 3 of a kind, Straight or flush when playing video poker.4.  He played this way from about 1996 thru 1998, then  started using it again in 2002 thru 2004.5. 
He was a successful player in Vegas, one of the things that caused him
to question the authenticity of randomness in Atlantic City.6.  Even in the face of knowing that the double-up feature was eating him alive, he kept playing, at least some of the time.7. 
He likes to warn and post about the possibility and frequency of video
poker rigging, both through a higher percentage of non-winning hands and
a higher percentage.8.  He took the time not only to record winners
and losers, but also to track how many of the cards not selected would
have won, lost, and drawn for 21,500 winning hands.9.  He continued
to sacrifice money, sometimes nickels, sometimes 30 quarters at a time
to continue his quest to record results.  And continued to play
double-up sometimes in Atlantic City, even though he doubts the
randomness of the RNGs there.10.  He adamantly maintains that all these things happened and that he has been accurate and truthful in his depictions.If this were a true/false test how would you answer?  Ten trues?Now,
do you think that other people can believe that all 1 thru 10 can be
true at the same time?  Is it somehow more believable without the "He's
so smart's"?  Would it be more believable if I were nicer in how I
strung these statements together?What's the big deal from your
perspective?  I guess people lie sometimes.  They stretch the truth,
embroider a little, make themselves out to be a bit more of a hero in a
story than they were, or they slant the facts just a little to make it
easier to support their beliefs. Hey, if someone gets caught in a little
.. let's say, "misremembering" ... the world won't end.  I don't think
the forum rules require 100% honesty anywhere.  I'm sure you'll figure
out a way to carry on.  And I don't expect that you will change any of
your claims one bit.  That's not a realistic goal.  It may not be a
realistic goal for you to get others to believe that all 10 of those
points are true simultaneously either.  It does surprise me a little
that you seem to care.  No doubt a couple will post in your favor. 
Maybe then you will feel better. Good luck on your response.  I
am not planning on carrying on this debate indefinitely.  And I'm more
likely to answer a question on the topic of doubling up than on the
topic of whether I like you or I was mean to you.  And who knows?  Maybe
I'll give you the last word again.___________________________________________________________________You actually counted my words (512?)    Wow    I am not trying to be a victim, but come on, be real.....when you say and post stuff like your very last paragraph..........."MAYBE I"LL even let you have the last word??""    Seriously?   Look if you really want to show the world just how much of an arrogant A-hole I am, then don't be (such an obvious) one yourself.   Or at least just stop denying it and getting annoyed with me calling you what you really are.....as for those past instances that you reference in responding to my inquiry about the source of this apparent "hostility", well that's how YOU see and interpret past interactions.   I have my own thoughts.....neither of us will change the other's mind.Here's where this is all getting screwed up:You state many times that I have, or WAS, conducting tests, many tests, and "sacrificing" my money, etc.NO I was not "conducting tests".....I was visiting LAS VEGAS, either on weekends or during several different extended vacations each year for the purpose of entertainment and fun.   IN THE COURSE or process of doing this, for several reasons, I liked to record my results.....NOT for the purpose of testing, but for curiosity (at first), improving my play, comparing my results with a circle of friends I had back then who shared my interest, etc.   ALL the normal reasons you would expect and that you may see other players doing so.....now let that soak in for a moment......I was there for fun and profit (hopefully), and ultimately entertainment.As time wore on and I was seeing (and Kept seeing) this awful progression of Double Up results, it was THEN that I began to POSSIBLY suspect something.   I went in playing these games expecting the games to be exactly what they were supposed to be.   And for a long long time, as I was having bad results, I just shrugged it off saying "oh well, it will get better, it HAS TO!"   I thought I was just unlucky, or a victim of variance.    Can you see what I am saying here so far?????    I did not set out with a preconceived notion nor set out TRYING to prove something......I just gradually started to notice something and went from there.......It was around that fateful period, 2002 to 2003 that I truly developed my theory that maybe the double up feature was not what I thought it was or did not work exactly like it seemed to (i.e. that there was some sort of built in bias for the house to ensure players could not FREQUENTLY double up a simple full house all the way up to a ROYAL PAYOUT.)   And that is when I gradually, sporadically accumulated that 21.5K collection of double up results......this was done over numerous weekends and several extended vacations in and around Vegas from 2002 thru 2003 (I'm not 100% certain but pretty sure nonetheless it was at least 45 accumulated total days worth of play in Vegas at various casinos, mainly downtown, to accumulate that set of results, so its actually not that much when you consider I can play as fast as 1200 hands an hour accurately;   but obviously I play much slower if I am recording with such detail and precision and purpose).    This is the crucial piece of information and period of activity and the center of both my argument and the controversy.   What I did before (like in 1996-98 ) and shortly after was relevant and certainly showed a double up rate of less than 50%, but I concede I may have sketched too broad a stroke or inclusiveness in trying to support my central set of date three years ago when we were talking about this.   Are you starting to see what I am saying here?   Also, when YOU say I say I was "a successful player in Vegas".... I am pretty sure that I have said on numerous occasions that I saw overall VP hand results in VEGAS that were consistent with expected results, save the Double Up function.   I did have a few profitable years in Vegas between 1995 thru 2007ish, but I am unaware where I flat out stated I was successful in general in Vegas vis-a-vis Video Poker.    I played other games in all my years in vegas and pretty sure they get lumped in with the overall results.I'm pointing this out because you skipped over my point earlier where I asked you to point out your accusations regarding my EXPLOITS in various fields (chess poker math etc etc), whereby you were implying (obviously) that I am a chronic liar (or "misrememberer"....or BS artist  etc etc.)   You are taking liberties yourself in the narrative you are crafting about what YOU think is going on here, that's all I am saying.

[DaBurglar]

"Now, let's get back to doubling up.  You asked Vman why he didn't object
to this post 3 years ago.  I can guess it was so that he didn't have to
engage in this ridiculous back and forth.  The poster Case did object
back then and we can see how courteous you were to him."One other thing......you posted this statement, saying this back and forth is ridiculous.....OK, well why would you say this and yet do what you are doing?   This is what I get thrown a lot, seemingly inconsistent and hypocritical potshots regarding why or what I do here!   Don't go to all the trouble you are doing crafting these overwhelmingly involved retorts and dissections of ME and they just dismiss it all as ridiculous.....I don;t think it is necessarily ridiculous......and Yes I was courteous to Case back in the day, and I hope you read the entirety of the first thread because there are some tidbits in there which should mollify some of the criticism you are dispensing.

[New2vp]

1. DaBurglar is a smart guy.2. He gathered data that could have been used to conduct a statistical test to
determine that the double up feature was clearly not a fair game in Las
Vegas and find that 65% of the time (or more) he lost.3.  He used to consistently hit "YES" on double up for any Jacks or better, 2
pair, 3 of a kind, Straight or flush when playing video poker.4.  He played this way from about 1996 thru 1998, then  started using it again in 2002 thru 2004.5. 
He was a successful player in Vegas, one of the things that caused him
to question the authenticity of randomness in Atlantic City.6.  Even in the face of knowing that the double-up feature was eating him alive, he kept playing, at least some of the time.7. 
He likes to warn and post about the possibility and frequency of video
poker rigging, both through a higher percentage of non-winning hands and
a higher percentage.8.  He took the time not only to record winners
and losers, but also to track how many of the cards not selected would
have won, lost, and drawn for 21,500 winning hands.9.  He continued
to sacrifice money, sometimes nickels, sometimes 30 quarters at a time
to continue his quest to record results.  And continued to play
double-up sometimes in Atlantic City, even though he doubts the
randomness of the RNGs there.10.  He adamantly maintains that all these things happened and that he has been accurate and truthful in his depictions.___________________________________________________________________You actually counted my words (512?)    WowNo, Microsoft Word does that in about 2 seconds, if that.  But I admit that I was teasing when I commented to Bob Dancer that I was waiting for software to come out to separate the words into groups. 
I am not trying to be a victim, but come on, be real.....when you say and post stuff like your very last paragraph..........."MAYBE I"LL even let you have the last word??""    Seriously?   Look if you really want to show the world just how much of an arrogant A-hole I am, then don't be (such an obvious) one yourself.Thanks for reducing the whining and being civil.  I am a bit surprised you picked that particular phrase of mine as being contemptible.  Of course, I don't believe I used the caps, so I get that you were trying to emphasize a word or two.  I believe the precise phrase that I used was, "Maybe I'll give you the last word again."  That was by using the clipboard.  Perhaps I should have said "I may not respond at one time or other after you've made a post."  Would that have been better?Here's where this is all getting screwed up:You state many times that I have, or WAS, conducting tests, many tests, and "sacrificing" my money, etc.NO I was not "conducting tests".....I was visiting LAS VEGAS, either on weekends or during several different extended vacations each year for the purpose of entertainment and fun.   IN THE COURSE or process of doing this, for several reasons, I liked to record my results.....NOT for the purpose of testing, but for curiosity (at first), improving my play, comparing my results with a circle of friends I had back then who shared my interest, etc.   ALL the normal reasons you would expect and that you may see other players doing so.....now let that soak in for a moment......I was there for fun and profit (hopefully), and ultimately entertainment.I have never faulted you or anyone for wanting to keep records.  I perfectly understand wanting to investigate whether a game was fair.  I am surprised that you would take the time to collect records on 21,500 winners given the results that you had, but I understand that you did not think of this as a statistical test.  You can see above that I changed some words in the 2nd statement above.  Instead of He was able to conduct a statistical test, I changed it to He gathered data that could have been used to conduct a statistical test.  I'm good with that but I don't think it changes any conclusions except it explains why you continued to test well beyond what would have been necessary to establish bias.As time wore on and I was seeing (and Kept seeing) this awful progression of Double Up results, it was THEN that I began to POSSIBLY suspect something.   I went in playing these games expecting the games to be exactly what they were supposed to be.   And for a long long time, as I was having bad results, I just shrugged it off saying "oh well, it will get better, it HAS TO!"   I thought I was just unlucky, or a victim of variance.    Can you see what I am saying here so far?????    I did not set out with a preconceived notion nor set out TRYING to prove something......I just gradually started to notice something and went from there.......Hey, I think it is great to be skeptical.  If you can step back for a second from your story, you can see that I am being skeptical, too.  And, please focus on this:  I'm not picking out any single one of the statements in the list of 10 with either malice or prejudice and saying that I am certain that it is false.  Many of them, perhaps most of them may very well be true.  I'm fairly certain that the first one is true.  But for those that see through the math of this, the 10 statements really can't all be true.  That's just the way it is.Another thing: For some reason, you have attributed to me some idea that I believe all casinos are honest.  I'm not at all defending that.  I'm also willing to bet that not all posters are honest.  And when I see enough evidence one way or another, I then make a reasonable inference. I know how a double-up function would work in a fair game and I understand that many people misunderstand and cannot determine or perceive whether or not a game is fair.  Many of them trust their instincts or their experience.  But it turns out time after time that human's instincts with regard to recognizing randomness are not as good as, say, the instincts to quickly steer clear of danger.  It really isn't hard to put that type of test together.I can even help you design your test for whatever you are doing in Atlantic City and help you to interpret the results.  I have no vested interest in whether or not the double-up feature in any geography actually is fair.  However, no matter what results you get there, that will not resolve the inconsistency of the ten statements that we are discussing here. It was around that fateful period, 2002 to 2003 that I truly developed my theory that maybe the double up feature was not what I thought it was or did not work exactly like it seemed to (i.e. that there was some sort of built in bias for the house to ensure players could not FREQUENTLY double up a simple full house all the way up to a ROYAL PAYOUT.)   And that is when I gradually, sporadically accumulated that 21.5K collection of double up results......this was done over numerous weekends and several extended vacations in and around Vegas from 2002 thru 2003 (I'm not 100% certain but pretty sure nonetheless it was at least 45 accumulated total days worth of play in Vegas at various casinos, mainly downtown, to accumulate that set of results, so its actually not that much when you consider I can play as fast as 1200 hands an hour accurately;   but obviously I play much slower if I am recording with such detail and precision and purpose).    This is the crucial piece of information and period of activity and the center of both my argument and the controversy.   What I did before (like in 1996-98 ) and shortly after was relevant and certainly showed a double up rate of less than 50%, but I concede I may have sketched too broad a stroke or inclusiveness in trying to support my central set of date three years ago when we were talking about this.   Are you starting to see what I am saying here?I get it.  Actually there is nothing that I didn't get before this post of yours except what I bolded in red and what I bolded directly above.  Your words are not entirely clear and I don't want to misinterpret them, but it looks like you're saying you were trying too hard to support your point and may have not been totally accurate in some statements.  If so, that gets a little closer to reconciliation. Also, when YOU say I say I was "a successful player in Vegas".... I am pretty sure that I have said on numerous occasions that I saw overall VP hand results in VEGAS that were consistent with expected results, save the Double Up function.     I did have a few profitable years in Vegas between 1995 thru 2007ish,
but I am unaware where I flat out stated I was successful in general in
Vegas vis-a-vis Video Poker.    I played other games in all my years in
vegas and pretty sure they get lumped in with the overall results.When I wrote the 10 statements, I was not drawing conclusions.  To the extent that I could, I was copying or paraphrasing from your posts.  Point #5 was not in your discussion of double-ups but it was your statement.  Maybe this is one of the statements that isn't true that will make things more consistent but that isn't for me to say, because I would not know. From early 2008 thru early 2010 (about 24 months) in Las Vegas,
playing primarily at the Golden Nugget and Fitzgeralds (now called "D")
in Downtown, I logged 476,500 hands of JOB 9/6 25cent max coin:  My net
result was a positive cash amount of $2,955.75....the lowest point
during this period was at the 10 month juncture when I was down
almost $3,300 and the high point came during month 21 when I topped
$4,100, but a lousy 23rd month landed me at the final
total mentioned....8 Royals were hit...obviously if I include the comps I
earned in this endeavor the final total "win" is higher, but I didnt
attempt to quantify all the "free food, drinks and t-shirts & mugs"
I accumulated (honestly, the food at the Fitz kinda sucked lol) From
2009 (February) thru May 2011 in Atlantic City, playing almost
exclusively at the Hilton and Trump Plaza (in the last 7 months, Hilton
AC got rid of all its 9/6 JOB 25 cent machines so it was ALL at Trump
the last 7 months), I logged 459,100 hands and my net result was a
NEGATIVE cash amount of $4,090.00!!!I'd say that winning money over that period of time on negative games was very successful.  I realize this isn't the exact same time period, but you also had this statement. I have spent many years in and around Vegas, especially during the
incredible "ride" from 1995 thru 2004, and all I can say is I miss the
old Vegas! Again we don't have an exact figure, but you seemed very positive.  Double up wasn't mentioned.  It's the next quote that sort of drives the point home.  As you can see above, the exclamation points indicate you were a bit concerned with the loss of $4K.Anyone care to speculate WHY I would have such dramatically different results in one market versus another? I don't know if anyone did speculate, but most of us know that you have made it a career from that point forward to question the randomness in AC.  Apparently, this was either the beginning of that or the beginning had occurred a little before.  The fact that you were so concerned about what amounted to less than a 1% loss in AC, along with the reported positive amount above, including  your incredible ride statement in 1995 thru 2004 suggests that you were at least trying to imply that you were used to better results in Vegas.  And it's tough to be better than less than a 1% loss without being positive.  Of course, that <1% loss certainly would not be a sufficient statistical evidence of anything untoward going on, but I know you have been busy gathering more over the years.Just so you know, although I did break the post into pieces and did not include all of it, I did not change a single character in what was above.But you may have ... because you edited the overall post for some reason 3 years after you posted it.  Again, I'm not saying you were wrong here or not saying that you don't have a right to edit your own posts, but it is part of a puzzle without perfectly-interlocking pieces, if you will excuse the euphemistic metaphor.There is one more indicator of an issue, but certainly not proof of anything.  Your statement looks like it could be more consistent with someone trying to remember what they said rather than what actually happened.  Of course the two could be the same thing.  Your statement:  "but I am unaware where I flat out stated I was successful in general in
Vegas vis-a-vis Video Poker."  By itself that looks great; however, you have often stated how detailed, meticulous, or even anal that your recordkeeping used to me, from the very first post you made here.With your attention to detail, one would expect that you wouldn't have to recall what you stated in the forum.  Instead you would be trying to recall what was in those detailed and meticulous records.  Of course, that would be if the forum statements were all consistent with the actual records and weren't shaded a little to bolster any particular discussion that was going on at the time.  I'm not saying that you did that or that this is conclusive of proving anything.However, everything stands out more when we try to reconcile which of the 10 statements is leading to the contradiction.I'm pointing this out because you skipped over my point earlier where I asked you to point out your accusations regarding my EXPLOITS in various fields (chess poker math etc etc), whereby you were implying (obviously) that I am a chronic liar (or "misrememberer"....or BS artist  etc etc.)   You are taking liberties yourself in the narrative you are crafting about what YOU think is going on here, that's all I am saying.Well, you are right.  I am saying that something else needs to be added to the 10 statements or some of them have to be deleted as not true for all this to hang together.  Logically, lying about some of them, or even most of them, could be one possible explanation, but there certainly could be others.  I did not conclude that you were lying about a particular statement, but you are right, I rendered an opinion that most might not be able to believe that all 10 statements were simultaneously true. In particular, I didn't believe that all of them could be simultaneously true.  However, I think I also wrote, "No doubt a couple will post in your favor," meaning that some are more than willing to believe all 10 ... or more likely, they wouldn't be reading all this or the previous posts anyway.I appreciate your more measured tone.  I think I have removed all the sarcasm, but as you may have surmised, being totally sans sarcasm is not my strong suit.  Best of luck with what you are trying to prove in Atlantic City.  You might want to think what you're going to do with the results.  It would probably be more important to AC regulators than it would be to some of the forum members, particularly the ones that never go to AC.

[pokerforme]

Proven over and over to be a fraud yet million word responses= zero credibility! Give it up already DB