Short term strategies, part deuce

[cddenver]

Thanks for answering my challege cd, you beat me good. What was your strategy, ARTT, or just plain luck?  Thanks again,  Ted.
 
Shhh!   $29.95 for the straight poop, Ted, same as always.  And no trying to suck-up with hopes of getting freebies.  You wanna play, you gotta pay.

[New2vp]

cd, Great points.  It's simple really to understand what's going on.  No player with an ounce of sophistication would believe any of this stuff.  But that has never been the target market for these crazy ideas.  By looking around the world, I'm sure there are a few who will buy just about anything.Most probably don't frequent this forum.  So, what is the point?  Well, it seems that someone might have run out of ways to say that play based on mathematical expectation is worthless and that the level of pay schedule is insignificant in choosing machines.  It must be difficult to write a column every week and find a new way to say the same 3 or 4 things.I know this is not a forum for online gambling but odds are high that this discussion will be fodder for the next column or three. We should give out plaudits for the difficulty of his plight and those who follow.  It's quite difficult for a "disciple" to prove himself simultaneously as (1) I'm not an alias, (2) I'm sufficiently knowledgeable to argue these points, and (3) I'm sufficiently naive enough not to recognize the basic flaws in the argument.Of course when sincerity and veracity are not important in making the points, I guess it makes the task a bit less difficult.

[oej719]

The forum supplies all the material for (the) columns.
The columns supply bait for the scam (trap).
I go around freeing people from the scam(trap), and/or hepling them avoid the scam (trap).

[rolanddude]

New2VP & CDdenver:I was never given a forum to tell how I play ARTT, The tweaks that I (on my own) have made from his original guidelines. Like playing 200/800 credits instead of 100/400 as his writings lay out, or even how I "ALWAYS" play on through 100 more credits when a winner has me up enough over my goal.(not a hunch, not every now and then)  I wasn't asked how to play ARTT I was only asked things like "Why is it that he does not have this strategy on his sight...Hmmmm?  Maybe someone is trying to sell something.".  I then pointed out that it is there (FOR FREE) and has been at least since I found it back last May.  And you talk about conspiracy theories?...I find that laughable!  I was always defending, defending, defending myself and my results...before I could even tell you guys "Here's how I am playing my trial sessions."   Every now and then I could spit something out about an idea or two on ARTT in between the constant slapping of my face.  Double talk? Double talk? A computer simulator will not run two strategies side by side through the exact same hands dealt.  Only through a set amount of hands with different rng s with the same ev s.  If you know of one and how to do it let me know.As for his experiment...I could care less!!  It is his time on his dime.  Which way I lean is only due to the fact I consider him a friend.   I know him...anyone here would admit that they would lend someone they Know their ear first instead of a faceless, nameless, hostile crowd in a chat room! Right?  I hope?  But with some here I just don't ...never mind...

[oej719]

We are glad you and he are friends. God knows he could use one. Hang in there long enough and he might be an ex- friend.

[rolanddude]

Slap! Punch! Kick! Ummph! I rest my case.  I put my intentions forth on the previous page.Anyone reading in the future that wants to know more can contact me. Through Email....Staying with this crowd...the  "No player with an ounce of sophistication would believe any of this stuff. "...crowd, is hopeless.  So go on losing with sophistication or any other way you choose.  I am going to test it play it and live with my results openly without fear, unlike ALL here who just kind of grin and play and like da Cat said yesterday..."with the help of a few here in this forum I am glad to be losing less than I was."    Now that's a testimony!!!  Go ahead and stand on your "solid?" ground I am leaving before I sink!CYA,Joe CarterRolanddude@aol.com 

[oej719]

Allow me to get the door for you. Bundle up and stay warm.

[New2vp]

A computer simulator will not run two strategies side by side through the exact same hands dealt.  Only through a set amount of hands with different rng s with the same ev s.  If you know of one and how to do it let me know.
It's unnecessary to use the same deals to test different systems if your test includes a sufficient number of hands with each system.  I don't recall what education you cited that makes you expert at evaluating these, but if you had the most elementary college statistics class (and retained any of it or could revisit the methods), you could use the knowledge that you learned there to construct sample variances and confidence intervals for the results of both systems.  This will tell you if you have run enough simulations.  If you cannot do this, you're really not qualified to analyze and interpret the results.But, if you insist on having the same random numbers for each test, you could set up your own Excel spreadsheet with a random number in each row [The formula is "=RAND()".]  Each row represents another new hand.  You could use the same random number to assign final hands to both systems.  You could assign these final hands by setting up two different tables that included which random numbers would trigger a high pair, two pairs, ..., up to quad aces, straight flush and the royal flush.  Here, you could use the =VLOOKUP function.  You could set up formulas that identified which game and which denomination you were playing, based on the results of the previous hand(s), to track the progress until you wished to terminate each session based on whatever criteria you put in the formulas.You can make as many replications as you would like by copying the columns that represent a session to other columns, making certain that you use new random numbers for these new sessions.  Then you could use more formulas to summarize your results. Now record the results for use in telling others what you found.Since, in Excel, the random numbers change every time you enter a new formula, you can simply pick out a cell that you are not using and enter something simple like the number "1" in this new cell.  The numbers will change and you will have a new set of simulations that you can add to your first set.  Then keep entering "1" over and over; you can generate as many groups of sessions as you would like.If you don't want the random numbers to change, you can just use the keystrokes Copy, Paste Special, Value in your range of random numbers to keep them from changing.This seems like a lot of work, but it would give you the desired
results.  It could be done in 2-3 hours, a lot less time than it took you to run 208 sessions using just one system.   Of course, if someone understood the underlying mathematics well enough to understand the next paragraph it is really unnecessary to do even that much work. The math will still tell you that as you increase the number of simulations, your expected average winnings per play will tend to close in on what you would get if you took a weighted average of amounts bet multiplied by the EV of the game.I hope you're not bothered by my spoiling the mystery by telling you the answer before you try the experiment.  I'm guessing you won't do this, but at least you now know how it is done.

[shadowman]

Now that Joe says he going let's review his last post.
 
New2VP & CDdenver:

I was never given a forum to tell how I play ARTT,
 
Fail. That is exactly what I ask you to do when this new thread was created and instead you went right back to talking about running experiments.
 
 
The tweaks that I (on my own) have made from his original guidelines. Like playing 200/800 credits instead of 100/400 as his writings lay out, or even how I "ALWAYS" play on through 100 more credits when a winner has me up enough over my goal.(not a hunch, not every now and then)  I wasn't asked how to play ARTT I was only asked things like "Why is it that he does not have this strategy on his sight...Hmmmm?  Maybe someone is trying to sell something.".  I then pointed out that it is there (FOR FREE) and has been at least since I found it back last May.  And you talk about conspiracy theories?...I find that laughable! 
 
Fail. None of the "special plays" which are part of the strategy are posted. So, there's no way to play the strategy without personal instruction, which, of course, IS THE CON. 
 

I was always defending, defending, defending myself and my results...before I could even tell you guys "Here's how I am playing my trial sessions."   Every now and then I could spit something out about an idea or two on ARTT in between the constant slapping of my face.  Double talk? Double talk?
 
Fail. All Joe ever did was go back to histories. When he was told and shown why histories were worthless, he ignored these posts and continued to repeat the same nonsense over and over again. 

A computer simulator will not run two strategies side by side through the exact same hands dealt.  Only through a set amount of hands with different rng s with the same ev s.  If you know of one and how to do it let me know.
 
Fail. Once again it's back to testing histories. Double fail.

As for his experiment...I could care less!!  It is his time on his dime.  Which way I lean is only due to the fact I consider him a friend.   I know him...anyone here would admit that they would lend someone they Know their ear first instead of a faceless, nameless, hostile crowd in a chat room! Right?  I hope?  But with some here I just don't ...never mind...

 
Fail. The claimed results of "the experiemnt" are an obvious lie. The chances of 58% repeats over 26,000 hands has to be less than one in a trillion. You know what they say ... if it walks like a duck ...

[cddenver]

As for his experiment...I could care less!!  It is his time on his dime. 
 
That statement completely contradicts everything you've said on the subject of machine randomness in these recent threads.  "I believe...", "I lean towards", etc.   If you had no particular opinion on the subject you could have just said so.   Because of your recent illness you haven't played anyway and should have stuck with that.  But at every opportunity you were trying to pass off your friend's view as the correct one while, at the same time, doing it in such a way that you yourself wouldn't have to defend it.   And that at the expense of supporting your own ARTT results as they'd apply to real machines.  That's a personal "no-no" with me, a BIG one, and if you decide to return and continue these discussions I'll continue to harp on that kind of approach to supporting a view every time I see it, whether it's randomness or something else. 
 
The next time you talk to or email your friend, tell him that he needs to realize that machine-rigging assertions have real-world, big-picture implications that extend beyond an individual player sitting at a machine at a given time.   If he's not comfortable thinking that way, then he'll need to change his thinking.
 
As far as testing/comparing different strategies on your own, you can do it with Excel since you already use it.  I was going to suggest a way of doing it, but I saw that New2vp beat me to the punch with not one but several suggestions.  It might take longer than the couple of hours he says () but still much less time than actually playing out sessions with VPFW.
 
One last correction - your friend's time is worth nickels at the moment, not dimes.